John Denver sang that West Virginia was "Almost Heaven".  Well no matter how closely West Virginia may resemble the hereafter, it's almost irrelevant in the grand scheme of politics.  Nothing proved that more than yesterday.

Clinton's victory was impressive by any standard and I'm certain that Obama's bum is smarting today after that ass whopping.  Does it change anything?  The Clinton camp seems to think so and they've asked the super delegates to take a look at the victory before making their decision.  (Here)

But should they?  Clinton claims that W. Virginia is a swing state, but I sincerely doubt that she would be able to snatch it from McCain's steely grip and for that matter Obama can put West Virginia in the "Don't Waste Campaign Money" category for November.

The thing that I find most interesting about the Clinton/Obama split is that the Clinton's tout that they are the candidate for the uneducated voter.  Isn't this tantamount to saying "I'm the choice of the folks who don't know any better?"  In exit polls, Clinton was favored by folks who listed "high school" as their highest academic achievement. 

It appears that the strategy going forward for Clinton is to ignore reality and press on with the Hillary Futility Tour of America.  Perhaps the campaign slog could be "Hillary Clinton: Show Her a Short Pier and She'll Take a Long Walk." 

In this revealing Washington Post article, a disturbing pattern of racism is shown to still inform the views of many American voters. Sadly, these are the "hard working white people" who make up Hillary Clinton's base of support.

From the Washington Post:

The contrast between the large, adoring crowds Obama draws at public events and the gritty street-level work to win votes is stark. The candidate is largely insulated from the mean-spiritedness that some of his foot soldiers deal with away from the media spotlight.

Documentary filmmaker Rory Kennedy, the daughter of the late Robert Kennedy, said she, too, came across "a lot of racism" when campaigning for Obama in Pennsylvania. One Pittsburgh union organizer told her he would not vote for Obama because he is black, and a white voter, she said, offered this frank reason for not backing Obama: "White people look out for white people, and black people look out for black people."

A Clinton volunteer said, "He's a half-breed and he's a Muslim. How can you trust that?"

This is a great vote of confidence for our American political system.  After years of hate tinged rhetoric aimed at first, to generate church company (and personal) "proift" and second, to gain crowd control (so that he could make more money in the future), Hagee can simply say he was sorry for one thing he said.  The news media can now drop any reference to Hagee and focus more on Obama.

The sad part of this is that neither Hagee or Wright are relevant to the choice of our next President.  George W Bush spoke often and directly to God, himself, (he reported) and look what a dismal failure Bush has been.  Hagee and Pat Robinson do stand for denying gays/lesbians and women their inalienable rights and Wright does have an excellent record of community outreach to the very poor, but those are moral or ethical values, not religious based actions.  Religion should play no part in this or any other election.  The ethics and morality of any supporter of McCain or Obama who the candidates whole-heartedly accept should be of interest to us. 

At the end of the day, it is what's inside the two candidates that will count.  Generally speaking the cost of raising campaign funds will swamp most other influences on the next President.  It just seems to me that community outreach is more in keeping with the American tradition than ignoring the rights of so many of our citizens.

Both Democratic candidates beat McCain by a gap well outside the margin of error. Obama beats McCain by 7 points in the poll, 47 percent to 40 percent, while Hillary Clinton bests the Arizona senator by 5 points, 46 percent to 41 percent.

So while the media does its best to make it seem like there's a gigantic rift in the Party that can't be fixed (and to some extent, so does Clinton), the truth is quite the opposite.

Cheers,
Charlie

(CNN)-Governor Ed Rendell's name has recently come up as a potential running mate for Barack Obama, but the Pennslyvania Governor said Wednesday, why settle for a Clinton supporter when you can have the real deal.

Rendell, who has encouraged the New York Senator to 'stay the course,' despite calls for her to end her campaign, said Wednesday she may not win the nomination -- but should be on the ticket either way.

"If Senator Obama becomes our nominee and he wants someone to carry the Clinton banner there's no question in my mind he should ask Hillary Clinton," Rendell told CNN's Kyra Phillips.

A major rift remains among Democratic voters as exit polls continually show a large portion of Clinton's supporters will not support Obama if he is the nominee in November, and vice versa. Still, the Pennsylvania governor said he would help Obama in his state as he did Clinton.

"If Hillary Clinton is not the nominee, I know that she cares very much about making change, and she will absolutely support Senator Obama enthusiastically," said Rendell. "But I believe with all my heart that she is the most experienced and most ready to be president."

Ok, West Virginia was a nice side show on our way to the big tent, and we'll have a few more of those. But let's look ahead for a moment to the human cannonball act: Is this the year Dems rocket back into the White House, fueled by discontent over gas prices, the economy and the war? Or will they have a candidate so battered by the lion taming act that a Republican packagable as moderate and will capture Reagan Democrats and the political center, and win the brass ring for the Republicans yet again?

Mississippi might offer a better clue to this riddle than West Virginia. Democrat Travis Childers won the race in Mississippi's first congressional district, held by Republicans have held since 1994. This is the second time in two weeks that a Democrat has defeated a Republican in an open Congressional seat in the south. On May 3rd, Democrat Don Cazayoux won a special election in Louisiana.

But that supposed side show in West Virginia last night might offer the more telling clue. The New York Times reports that one out of five white voters said race was an important factor in their votes. And more than four out of five white voters who said race factored in their decision pulled the lever for Clinton. That's a far higher percentage than in most previous primaries, and a worrisome sign for Obama. Can he win over Clinton's supporters among women and white working class voters? Or, as Hillary Clinton has suggested, is the Republican moderate better positioned to do that in key swing states?

What do you think? Please send us your thoughts. Thank you!

State News
- Proposed Wal-Mart Supercenter that had drawn ire in Roanoke area will not be built

National News
- U.S. Senate turns down attempt to expand offshore drilling
- Clinton wins handily in W.Va.

Sports News
- UVa. cornerback Mike Brown charged with DWI
- Cavs sneak past VMI in extra innings
- Former JMU star Tony LeZotte signs with CFL; former UVa. star Jeffrey Fitzgerald headed to K State?

Sen. Hillary Clinton used her big win in West Virginia on Tuesday to make her case that she has a better chance of beating the Republicans in the general election.

"I am more determined than ever to carry on this campaign," she told supporters in Charleston, West Virginia.

"I am in this race because I believe I am the strongest candidate. ... I can lead this party to victory in the general election if you lead me to victory now."

With half of the results in, Clinton was ahead of Sen. Barack Obama by a margin of more than 2-1.

Clinton has faced calls to drop out of the race because she trails Obama in delegates won, states won and the popular vote this primary season.

Clinton also now trails Obama when it comes to the support of superdelegates, and her campaign is $20 million in the red

Read full story...

According to a new Quinnipiac University poll, both Democratic candidates beat McCain by a gap well outside the margin of error. Obama beats McCain by 7 points in the poll, 47 percent to 40 percent, while Hillary Clinton bests the Arizona senator by 5 points, 46 percent to 41 percent.

The poll carries a margin of error of plus or minus 2.4 points and was conducted from May 8-12.

Clinton and Obama's relatively strong standing against McCain in the poll appear to dispel notions that Democratic party may be unable to come together around one candidate in the fall, even as West Virginia exit polls reported majorities of both candidates' supporters would not support the other candidate in the general election.

REAGAN COULD SEE THE BIG PICTURE BUT NOT AS COMPLETELY OR AS DEEPLY AS OBAMA CAN. OBAMA ALSO COMMUNICATES WELL.

Given a choice between Ford and Carter in 1976, I voted for Ford. Given a choice between Reagan and Carter in 1980, I voted for Clark who was the Libertarian candidate. I have since gained more respect for both Reagan and Carter in retrospect.

McCain and GW Bush are more similar than many people realize. Both had powerful fathers and grandfathers who propelled them though life starting in college. As young men, Bush was a drifter and McCain was a raunchy party boy. Both of them are for continuing the Iraq war and economic policy as it is.

IF YOU LIKED RONALD REAGAN, VOTE FOR OBAMA. IF YOU LIKE GEORGE W. BUSH,VOTE FOR McCAIN .

Argument 1: Clinton's supporters won't vote for Obama.

Why it doesn't hold up: Clinton supporters are still democrats, and when the general election begins, democrats will see the clear contrast between John McC (aka GWB's third term) and Barack Obama, and they will vote for the democrat. John McC is not a viable alternative to a democratic candidate. Those who say they'll vote for him instead of Obama are short-sighted and unwilling to give up the dream for Clinton- and if they really will vote for John McC instead of Obama, then they're idiots.

Argument 2: Hillary wins swing states that Obama can't win.

Why it doesn't hold up: First of all, Obama is redefining the electoral map. He is bringing in states for the democratic party that have been red states for some time. Secondly, does anybody really think Californians will vote for a pro-life Republican candidate over Obama?

Argument 3: There's so much excitement and voter turnout for these two candidates that we risk losing the voter turnout if we don't have a "dream ticket."

Why it doesn't hold up: As in my previous refutation, if Obama is the nominee, Hillary supporters will not flock in droves to John McC. It just won't happen. However, if Hillary is the nominee, you can bet that many African American voters won't vote. The ratio of African American Obama supporters to African American Hillary supporters is 9:1. If Hillary is nominated at this point, with the math against her, it will look like she stole the nomination from Obama. Which, in effect, is exactly what it would be. In order for her to win, (though even discussing this is far-fetched and I wouldn't be discussing it at all if Obama's and Clinton's roles were reversed) Michigan and Florida would have to count. Neither of the "elections" in these states were true elections. Obama and Edwards pulled their names off the ballot in Michigan because they knew that the date set for the primary was outside party rules. Hillary, however, let her name remain on the ballot (because when has she actually cared about rules?) and picked up the votes. She even said in October that "Michigan won't count for anything and everyone knows that." In Florida, all candidates were forbidden from campaigning because the date set for the primary was likewise illegal according to democratic party rules. Now Hillary wants the vote to count. She wants two states that conducted their primaries illegally to essentially tip the popular vote scale in her favor. She wants illegal primaries to determine the outcome of the election, which in my mind equals a nomination theft.

Furthermore, all gramps would have to do is replay that clip of Hillary saying "John McCain and I both have a lifetime of experience" over and over again if she were Obama's running mate.

We won't lose voters sans-"dream ticket" because they will be energized by the general election- the contrast of old vs. new, progress vs. maintaining the status quo, inspiration vs. complete lack of vision- and they will unite behind Obama. He doesn't need Clinton, but she needs him.

Also, Clinton seems to have an unnerving effect on Obama, and is, as the NYT called her, his "jane jinx." He needs a running mate who likewise voted against the Iraq war (we need to have a distinct contrast with John McC on that topic) and who will fit in with Obama's message of hope, inspiration, and a return to America's greatness. HRC is not that candidate.

Coming soon: The real "dream ticket" and who's on it.

Hillary is A LEADER. She DOESN'T GIVE UP. And she DOESN'T QUIT!
It really is that simple.

This is what she had to say last night after a resounding win in West Virginia:

People ask me all the time, why am I in this race. Well, I’m in it because of the people that I have worked for my entire life and the people I meet along the campaign trail, people who need someone who fights for them because they’re fighting so hard every single day, the people who drive for miles to show their support, who come with the home-made sign, who raise money by skipping those dinners out, who have stood fast and stood strong. I’m in this race for the millions of Americans who know that we can do better in our country, for the nurse on her second shift, for the worker on the line, for the waitress on her feet, for the small business owner, the farmer, the teacher, the coal miner, the trucker, the soldier, the veteran, the college student.

All of the hardworking men and women who defy the odds to build a better life for themselves and their children. You will never be counted out, and I won’t either. You will never quit, and I won’t, either.

I don't know about the rest of you but I have deep admiration for someone that refuses to give up. And to me Hillary provides the very best role model for children that anyone could possibly offer them. Quite frankly, she is teaching this old fart a few things or two too.

When you believe something with all your heart you have to fight for it. That is how our country was founded. Fighting against the impossible odds of defeating the strongest military on the planet. We didn't give up because we knew that what we were doing was the right thing to do. We knew that the many sacrifices were necessary to achieve the promise of a brighter future. We didn't give up. Hillary doesn't give up. And neither should any of the rest of us.

The following video contrasts the real message of hope and change with a campaign branding of it. I am sure the differences will be glaringly obvious to you.

My many thanks to Uppity Woman from whom I ripped this off.

Below is the full text of Hillary's speech in China. It is as remarkable and true now as it was then. These are the words of a REAL leader. Not the plagiarized words of an empty suit filled with hope & change.

******************************************************************

UN Women's Conference
September 5th, 1995

Thank you very much, Gertrude Mongella, for your dedicated work that has brought us to this point, distinguished delegates, and guests:

I would like to thank the Secretary General for inviting me to be part of this important United Nations Fourth World Conference on Women. This is truly a celebration, a celebration of the contributions women make in every aspect of life: in the home, on the job, in the community, as mothers, wives, sisters, daughters, learners, workers, citizens, and leaders.

It is also a coming together, much the way women come together every day in every country. We come together in fields and factories, in village markets and supermarkets, in living rooms and board rooms. Whether it is while playing with our children in the park, or washing clothes in a river, or taking a break at the office water cooler, we come together and talk about our aspirations and concern. And time and again, our talk turns to our children and our families. However different we may appear, there is far more that unites us than divides us. We share a common future, and we are here to find common ground so that we may help bring new dignity and respect to women and girls all over the world, and in so doing bring new strength and stability to families as well.

By gathering in Beijing, we are focusing world attention on issues that matter most in our lives -- the lives of women and their families: access to education, health care, jobs and credit, the chance to enjoy basic legal and human rights and to participate fully in the political life of our countries.

There are some who question the reason for this conference. Let them listen to the voices of women in their homes, neighborhoods, and workplaces. There are some who wonder whether the lives of women and girls matter to economic and political progress around the globe. Let them look at the women gathered here and at Huairou -- the homemakers and nurses, the teachers and lawyers, the policymakers and women who run their own businesses. It is conferences like this that compel governments and peoples everywhere to listen, look, and face the world’s most pressing problems. Wasn’t it after all -- after the women’s conference in Nairobi ten years ago that the world focused for the first time on the crisis of domestic violence?

Earlier today, I participated in a World Health Organization forum. In that forum, we talked about ways that government officials, NGOs, and individual citizens are working to address the health problems of women and girls. Tomorrow, I will attend a gathering of the United Nations Development Fund for Women. There, the discussion will focus on local -- and highly successful -- programs that give hard-working women access to credit so they can improve their own lives and the lives of their families.

What we are learning around the world is that if women are healthy and educated, their families will flourish. If women are free from violence, their families will flourish. If women have a chance to work and earn as full and equal partners in society, their families will flourish. And when families flourish, communities and nations do as well. That is why every woman, every man, every child, every family, and every nation on this planet does have a stake in the discussion that takes place here.

Over the past 25 years, I have worked persistently on issues relating to women, children, and families. Over the past two-and-a half years, I've had the opportunity to learn more about the challenges facing women in my own country and around the world.

I have met new mothers in Indonesia, who come together regularly in their village to discuss nutrition, family planning, and baby care. I have met working parents in Denmark who talk about the comfort they feel in knowing that their children can be cared for in safe, and nurturing after-school centers. I have met women in South Africa who helped lead the struggle to end apartheid and are now helping to build a new democracy. I have met with the leading women of the Western Hemisphere who are working every day to promote literacy and better health care for children in their countries. I have met women in India and Bangladesh who are taking out small loans to buy milk cows, or rickshaws, or thread in order to create a livelihood for themselves and their families. I have met the doctors and nurses in Belarus and Ukraine who are trying to keep children alive in the aftermath of Chernobyl.

The great challenge of this conference is to give voice to women everywhere whose experiences go unnoticed, whose words go unheard. Women comprise more than half the word’s population, 70% of the world’s poor, and two-thirds of those who are not taught to read and write. We are the primary caretakers for most of the world’s children and elderly. Yet much of the work we do is not valued -- not by economists, not by historians, not by popular culture, not by government leaders.

At this very moment, as we sit here, women around the world are giving birth, raising children, cooking meals, washing clothes, cleaning houses, planting crops, working on assembly lines, running companies, and running countries. Women also are dying from diseases that should have been prevented or treated. They are watching their children succumb to malnutrition caused by poverty and economic deprivation. They are being denied the right to go to school by their own fathers and brothers. They are being forced into prostitution, and they are being barred from the bank lending offices and banned from the ballot box.

Those of us who have the opportunity to be here have the responsibility to speak for those who could not. As an American, I want to speak for those women in my own country, women who are raising children on the minimum wage, women who can’t afford health care or child care, women whose lives are threatened by violence, including violence in their own homes.

I want to speak up for mothers who are fighting for good schools, safe neighborhoods, clean air, and clean airwaves; for older women, some of them widows, who find that, after raising their families, their skills and life experiences are not valued in the marketplace; for women who are working all night as nurses, hotel clerks, or fast food chefs so that they can be at home during the day with their children; and for women everywhere who simply don’t have time to do everything they are called upon to do each and every day.

Speaking to you today, I speak for them, just as each of us speaks for women around the world who are denied the chance to go to school, or see a doctor, or own property, or have a say about the direction of their lives, simply because they are women. The truth is that most women around the world work both inside and outside the home, usually by necessity.

We need to understand there is no one formula for how women should lead our lives. That is why we must respect the choices that each woman makes for herself and her family. Every woman deserves the chance to realize her own God-given potential. But we must recognize that women will never gain full dignity until their human rights are respected and protected.

Our goals for this conference, to strengthen families and societies by empowering women to take greater control over their own destinies, cannot be fully achieved unless all governments -- here and around the world -- accept their responsibility to protect and promote internationally recognized human rights. The -- The international community has long acknowledged and recently reaffirmed at Vienna that both women and men are entitled to a range of protections and personal freedoms, from the right of personal security to the right to determine freely the number and spacing of the children they bear. No one -- No one should be forced to remain silent for fear of religious or political persecution, arrest, abuse, or torture.

Tragically, women are most often the ones whose human rights are violated. Even now, in the late 20th century, the rape of women continues to be used as an instrument of armed conflict. Women and children make up a large majority of the world’s refugees. And when women are excluded from the political process, they become even more vulnerable to abuse. I believe that now, on the eve of a new millennium, it is time to break the silence. It is time for us to say here in Beijing, and for the world to hear, that it is no longer acceptable to discuss women’s rights as separate from human rights.

These abuses have continued because, for too long, the history of women has been a history of silence. Even today, there are those who are trying to silence our words. But the voices of this conference and of the women at Huairou must be heard loudly and clearly:

It is a violation of human rights when babies are denied food, or drowned, or suffocated, or their spines broken, simply because they are born girls.

It is a violation of human rights when women and girls are sold into the slavery of prostitution for human greed -- and the kinds of reasons that are used to justify this practice should no longer be tolerated.

It is a violation of human rights when women are doused with gasoline, set on fire, and burned to death because their marriage dowries are deemed too small.

It is a violation of human rights when individual women are raped in their own communities and when thousands of women are subjected to rape as a tactic or prize of war.

It is a violation of human rights when a leading cause of death worldwide among women ages 14 to 44 is the violence they are subjected to in their own homes by their own relatives.

It is a violation of human rights when young girls are brutalized by the painful and degrading practice of genital mutilation.

It is a violation of human rights when women are denied the right to plan their own families, and that includes being forced to have abortions or being sterilized against their will.

If there is one message that echoes forth from this conference, let it be that human rights are women’s rights and women’s rights are human rights once and for all. Let us not forget that among those rights are the right to speak freely -- and the right to be heard.

Women must enjoy the rights to participate fully in the social and political lives of their countries, if we want freedom and democracy to thrive and endure. It is indefensible that many women in nongovernmental organizations who wished to participate in this conference have not been able to attend -- or have been prohibited from fully taking part.

Let me be clear. Freedom means the right of people to assemble, organize, and debate openly. It means respecting the views of those who may disagree with the views of their governments. It means not taking citizens away from their loved ones and jailing them, mistreating them, or denying them their freedom or dignity because of the peaceful expression of their ideas and opinions.

In my country, we recently celebrated the 75th anniversary of Women’s Suffrage. It took 150 years after the signing of our Declaration of Independence for women to win the right to vote. It took 72 years of organized struggle, before that happened, on the part of many courageous women and men. It was one of America’s most divisive philosophical wars. But it was a bloodless war. Suffrage was achieved without a shot being fired.

But we have also been reminded, in V-J Day observances last weekend, of the good that comes when men and women join together to combat the forces of tyranny and to build a better world. We have seen peace prevail in most places for a half century. We have avoided another world war. But we have not solved older, deeply-rooted problems that continue to diminish the potential of half the world’s population.

Now it is the time to act on behalf of women everywhere. If we take bold steps to better the lives of women, we will be taking bold steps to better the lives of children and families too. Families rely on mothers and wives for emotional support and care. Families rely on women for labor in the home. And increasingly, everywhere, families rely on women for income needed to raise healthy children and care for other relatives.

As long as discrimination and inequities remain so commonplace everywhere in the world, as long as girls and women are valued less, fed less, fed last, overworked, underpaid, not schooled, subjected to violence in and outside their homes -- the potential of the human family to create a peaceful, prosperous world will not be realized.

Let -- Let this conference be our -- and the world’s -- call to action. Let us heed that call so we can create a world in which every woman is treated with respect and dignity, every boy and girl is loved and cared for equally, and every family has the hope of a strong and stable future. That is the work before you. That is the work before all of us who have a vision of the world we want to see -- for our children and our grandchildren.

The time is now. We must move beyond rhetoric. We must move beyond recognition of problems to working together, to have the comment efforts to build that common ground we hope to see.

God's blessing on you, your work, and all who will benefit from it.

Godspeed and thank you very much.

Tune in this Friday, May 16th, as Robert F. Kennedy Jr. visits "Late Night With David Letterman" on CBS. (11:30 p.m. Eastern)

Dave's guests will also include Teri Hatcher of Desperate Housewives.

The show was pre-taped on Monday, May 12 at New York's Ed Sullivan Theatre: check out a few nice photos of Kennedy arriving for the show on Wireimage.com.

This oughta be good. Don't miss it!

Why would Obama have such a convincing ass kicking after the corporate media anointed him the next messiah. The answer my friend is lying in the exit polls.

It looks like over half of the voters (53%) think Obama is untrustworthy. Over 63% of voters stated the economy, followed by Iraq and Health Care, as the most important issues. Around 60% of voters believe Hillary Clinton was better at handling all these issues.

Well, what do they know, right? They are all uneducated, rednecked, racists, right, or at least that is the Obama meme that has been spreading as of late. It turns out Hillary's support among liberals, moderates, and conservative hover around 60%. If that is broken down further such as very liberal Hillary gets 70% of the vote. In short, Hillary beats Obama in every criteria possible, region, education, income, church affiliation, political affiliation, ideology, gender, union membership, and age.

While around 80% of voters (white) said race was not important to them, it looks like the Wright thing has not gone away. Half of the voters believe that Obama shares the views of Rev. Wright. While 73% of the voters would be satisfied if Hillary won the nomination, 54% of votes would NOT be satisfied if Obama won.

Just the other day someone commented that a vote for Nader was a vote for McCain. While I don't pay much attention to such political bigotry, could not be the same be said about Obama. Does, anyone truly believe that if he wins the nomination, he will beat McCain in the general. Even his math does not add up. First he says there are 57 - I mean 60 states, and then believes New Mexico, Colorado, and Nevada (20 EC total) somehow compensates for the loss of West Virginia, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Florida.

I guess what the Super Delegates need to do, is ask themselves do they really believe Kansas, North Dakota, South Dakota, Colorado, and Nevada are going to put the Democrats over the top. If not they better think long and hard before installing Obama as messiah in chief.

I say this because:

1) Her speech softened her negative stance towards Obama

2) She and Bill cannot keep pouring money into the campaign. They may be millionaires, but $20 million already is a lot of money even for them.

3) Hillary made a few points about why she continues. Each point will be satisfied when the voting ends:

She is not a quitter

Her insistence that everyone must be given opportunity to vote: an appeal to suffrage

Her candidacy takes the cause of women beyond where it has previously been. Her poignant anecdote about the ederly WV woman who was born before women had the vote and who lived to cast her vote for Hillary. The pont of this story had a beginning, middle and end. In the beginning, women couldn't vote; in the middle, women could vote but had no cedible candidate for president; at the end, a vote was cast for a credible female candidate for president; the story, as Hillary told it, did not nd with a female president, only wth a female candidate for president, who went farther than any woman before her.

This story told me Hillary will get out.

Other factors have to do with the rules committee meeting on May 31. At the meeting, a decision will be made regarding the MI and Fla delegations. Quite frankly, she loses whatever they decide.

Thus her persistence has to do with process; once the process ends, so will her candidacy.

It will be a unified convention, featuring Bill Clinton.

So Hillary Clinton won a big one in West Virginia yesterday, almost as big as Obama's wins in Idaho, Hawaii, Alaska, Washington, Georgia, and Colorado. But West Virginia matters, because, because... well, as the Queen of Snarkiness (snarky before there was such a word as snarky) put it:

Obama is acting the diffident debutante, pretending not to care that he was given a raspberry by a state he will need in the fall. He was dismissed not only by the voters Hillary usually gets, but was also edged out in blocs that usually prefer him — the under-30 set, college graduates and affluent voters.

Interviews with West Virginians leaving the polls showed some profound weaknesses that could haunt the Illinois senator in the fall. More than half said they would be dissatisfied if Obama was the nominee. Half believe he shares the views of the Rev. Wright, and more than half said he does not share their values. More than half also said that he is not honest and trustworthy. Just under half of the Clinton voters said they would not support Obama in the fall.

O.K., so West Virginians don't keep up with current events very well. But Queen Maureen hints that there is a widespread, how-you-say, issue to take seriously:

Two in 10 white voters said race was important in how they voted, and more than 8 of 10 of these went for Hillary. This echoes an article in The Washington Post on Tuesday that chronicled the racism that some Obama volunteers found in Indiana and Pennsylvania.

The story quoted Victoria Switzer, a retired social studies teacher, who could take only one night on an Obama phone bank in the nearly all-white Susquehanna County, Pa.: “One caller, Switzer remembers, said he couldn’t possibly vote for Obama and concluded: ‘Hang that darky from a tree!’ ”

So shall I quake with fear and spill my chablis onto the seat of my pants?

Strangely, her prescription is to be more like Jack Kennedy, who overcame West Virginia's anti-Catholicism in 1960 (West Virginia's anti-Catholicism evidenced by her father's car being flipped over in West Virginia for having an Al Smith sticker on it in 1928). As if Catholics were equivalent to African Americans in America's sadder stories.

Dowd isn't the only one making a big deal of the idea that the racists of Appalachia are the key to White House. So shall we veer right? Shall Barack Obama go all oreo on us?

Naaah. How about considering a bit of reality instead? Two words: Mississippi One. The Democrats last night completed a trifecta of wins in special elections to Congress in solidly red districts -- Dennis Hastert's seat in Illinois, a seat in Louisiana that's been Republican since Ruchard Nixon whispered "Southern Strategy," and now a district that voted for George Bush almost like West Virginians voted for Hillary Clinton.

It's not as if Barack Obama's name didn't come up in this Deep Southern District. Consider this:

Yep. The Republicans ran against lied about Barack Obama in an open election in Tupelo and environs and still lost.

So to all you pundits who party write like it's 1928, two words again. Mississippi. One.

"Tornadoes, typhoons and earthquakes batter the globe, while the U.S. is teetering into recession and paralyzed by a stupid war it can neither win nor quit. But somehow we are locked at the hip to Hillary Clinton, who won't stop her manic tarantella until her party whirls into ruins, like the run-amuck carousel in Alfred Hitchcock's "Strangers on a Train."" - author Camille Paglia, from her Salon piece titled, " She won't go easy"

Even though the ship is sinking these “Handkerchief Head Negroes” refuse to jump off the
S.S. Hillary. You have to ask yourself, after all the disparaging racial remarks made by the Clintons (Hill & Bill) how their negro loyalists can live with themselves and say that they are honestly representing their constituents best interests by opting to play on the losing team instead of being penalized in the long run for not lining up with the presumptive candidate. And let’s be clear, this has nothing to do with so-call “race” even though if an organization like the “Black Caucus” would stigmatize themselves based on racial disparities the assumption is they would have the best interests of the “black” community at heart.

Mind you Sen. Barack Obama is a member of the Caucus but yet they are supporting Hillary, who they passionately refer to as a “friend” of “black” people. Remember Bill was the “1st” Black President and they do have an office in Harlem. These politicians have been forced to fall in line by the elder leadership comprised of Clinton loyalist and No. 1 cheerleader Charlie Rangel. It’s all politics, they could care less about the welfare of their constituents or the overall “black” community. So for those of you that exercise your power to vote let your voices be heard ’round election time and send these negroes back to the cotton fields they came from. Let ‘em do “Massas” biddin’ from there.

To See the list of these slave niggers go to source

The final tally was 67-26, with 7 percent going to John Edwards. As far as the video, note that HRC doesn't start asking for money until about 2:30 into the video. Notice how she repeats some of the usual canards. Oh, she has "won" the swing states? Yeah, like Colorado, Washington, Missouri, Wisconsin, Virginia and Georgia....oh wait, Obama won those states. :)

Oh yes, Obama (and Edwards) took their names off of the Michigan ballots because they were requested to do so; Clinton did not. Now she claims it as a "win".

Hey, let's throw out some sports metaphors:

1. "Michigan and Florida should count". Ok, this is a bit like saying that exhibition games should be counted in the standings after the fact!

2. "Obama dominated caucus states, which are disproportionally weighed toward party activists".
Ok, this is a bit like criticizing a team for knowing the rules and doing well within them.

3. "Clinton would be ahead under Republican rules". Well, this is false and well, this is like whining that a NBA team that lost a game "would have won" had, say, the 3 point shot rule not been in effect. Campaigns, like sports teams, plan their strategies and field their team so as to win within the current rules.

So, this means that Obama has a "white voter" problem?

No, not really; I present the following:

This map shows where HRC got 65% of the vote or more (by country) and note the huge swath that is Appalachia. BHO just doesn't do well in that region.

Other quips:

Is appealing to an educated voter bad? An amusing column by Robert J. Elisberg. He claims that Hillary Clinton thinks so.

How close is this race, really? Consider the figures:

The math against Clinton is powerful. Obama led in delegates with 1,875, now just 150 short of the 2,025 needed to clinch the nomination. Clinton had 1,712 — 313 short.

With fewer than 400 delegates left — 189 to be awarded in primaries remaining after Tuesday and the rest uncommitted superdelegates — it's possible that Obama could clinch the nomination when primary voting ends on June 3.

All it would take is for him to split delegates in the remaining five primaries evenly and take only one out of three remaining superdelegates.

Note: Clinton is expected to do well in Kentucky (Appalachia) though Obama should pick up some votes in Louisville. Obama should do well in Oregon (where he is way ahead) as well as in Montana and South Dakota. Puerto Rico should go to Clinton.

So what is HRC thinking? More and more, people are making the argument that she is trying to damage Obama so she can run against McCain in 2012.

I really don't buy that argument. Why? Well, if McCain does indeed beat Obama, just what makes her think that she'll be the nominee in 2012? She started with a lead in money, superdelegates, big donors, party support and about a 20-30 point lead in the polls, and then she went on to squander that. THIS is supposed to convince people that she should be the nominee in 2012? I don't think so.

And, there is one very harsh reality. Those who are voting for her now are primarily the white elderly (women) and the white uneducated voters. The sad fact is that many of the current elderly people simply won't be around in 2012, the proportion of uneducated voters will be somewhat smaller in 2012 (more people going to college) and the proportion of white voters will also be smaller. Her demographic base would have shrunk a bit by then.

So my take is that she is staying in because she knows that this is her shot. Note that she is making Huckabee like references to miracles.

Now, we all know the trick about "I didn't really try, so it's no big deal that I didn't do so well..." My students say this all the time when they write bad papers or do poorly on tests. My question to him, why didn't you try? Do you not think West Virginia voters are important, or are you getting complacent? Are you afraid of confrontation? Afraid of appearing weak? Is this the going to be the tortoise and the hare, Senator Obama?

So back to my original mission:

 State: Colin Powell. OK, he really messed up by joining the GWB administration, but he saw his mistake and got out. He still has dignity, though, and this would be a bi-partisan appointment without taking in an ideologue.

Treasury: Still thinking...make suggestions

Attorney General: Connecticut Attorney General Blumenthal. This guy is amazing! Saving either Walter Dellinger or Larry Tribe for the US Supreme Court.

Defense: Still thinking...make suggestions.

Interior: Chief Wilma Mankiller. This is not a joke. It's about time a well-respected Native American chief took the helm of this department which has a self-reported "culture of fear" that needs undoing. Its corruption is notorious, especially in the Bureau of Indian Affairs. I don't know whether the chief would take it, but it would be great to have her there.

Housing and Urban Development: John Edwards has led the way with his anti-poverty platform and could do a lot of good in this position. If she does create a cabinet post on poverty, then obviously Edwards would get that spot, and it would be a good call.

Transportation: Jackie Speier is one of those people who has extraordinary life experiences. Surviving gunshot wounds in a fact-finding mission to Jonestown, Speier has worked her way up in bi-partisan positions and earned a lot respect. She has experience in California with Caltrain.

Energy: Carol Browner, served the EPA under Bill Clinton for 2 terms and is well respected. She deserves this upgrade.

Education: Congressman Ciro Rodriguez has experience in education and mental health. He'd be a great pick for this post or health and human services, but I put him in education, where I think he'd really shine.

Veterans Affairs: Charles Rangel, a decorated veteran and congressman from Harlem. He has a controversial position about bringing back the draft, but it's basically an anti-war and equality measure. He certainly cares about veterans issues.

Homeland Security: General Wesley Clark here. Sound policies. Of course, it wouldn't upset me too much if we simply did away with this rather Fascist-sounding department altogether, in which case, Clark could be national security advisor.

 Unlike Obama, who seems to think he could get former presidents and vice presidents to serve under him, Clinton would show more respect. I think she'd take Gore's advice on whom to appoint to energy and the EPA, which would be prudent. But she wouldn't try to get him to take a post.

One another post I will deal with Agriculture, Commerce, Labor and Health and Human Services.

On the flip side, there are black people who have been so turned off by the Clintons tatics in this campaign baiting white people on race, that they are saying that they will not vote for Hillary if she wins the Democratic nomination.

So where does this leave Democrats?

Dr. Ron Walters from the University of Maryland made an interesting point.  Obama has to convince 70% of white America that he is not one of "us" and that they (white People) can trust him.  What does this say about America in 2008?  That race still trumps politics. 

The Clinton plan is obvious; to chip away Obama'a white voters and to reassure those blue collar white voters by playing the racial ignorance card.

Obama's plan is still the same; he is being race neutral and appealing to all Americans with change.

If this race is over, then why are there still super-delegates uncommitted?  They are uncommitted because it is not over yet folks.  Hillary Clinton is using the GOP playbook to tear down Obama.  She is hoping that in the next few months that Obama will make a mistake that she can take advantage off.  and she is willing to wear down the the Democratic Party to do this. 

This is a battle for power.  Power of the free world; and the idea that a person of color could be this close from the White House scares a lot of people in Main Stream America.

Here is the question.  What is the plan?  Obama has a plan and so does Clinton.  But what is the plan of their supporters; especially Obama supporters? 

Since I am an Obama supporter, I say keep supporting Obama, but:

• Let your Senators and Representatives know how you feel and hold them accountable.
• Don't forget about the U.S. Congressional and local Races that are also at stake; fight to keep both houses in Democratic control; remember that all politics are local.  And you need at least 60 votes to do anything in the Senate no matter who the President is.
• The same drive that new and young voters are having must be transferred over to local and state elections as well; you can not give up if Obama does not gain the nomination; the enemy wants you to become disenchanted with politics so that you won't vote.

Maureen Dowd, New York Times, May 14, 2008

In grim times, a bitter Hillary clings to bitter voters who in grim times supposedly cling to guns, religion and antipathy to people who aren’t like them.

Mining that antipathy, the New York senator has been working hard to get the hard-working white voters of hardscrabble Appalachia so she can show that a black man can’t yet be elected president.

Obama breezed through West Virginia, the state he couldn’t charm even wearing a flag pin and promising to invest in “clean coal.” Fast Barry shot some pool Monday afternoon at Schultzie’s Billiards in South Charleston, including prophetically sinking an eight-ball in the pocket, and then fled from Hillary territory to pursue white, blue-collar workers in battleground states and convince them not to vote for John McBush.

Obama is acting the diffident debutante, pretending not to care that he was given a raspberry by a state he will need in the fall. He was dismissed not only by the voters Hillary usually gets, but was also edged out in blocs that usually prefer him — the under-30 set, college graduates and affluent voters.

Interviews with West Virginians leaving the polls showed some profound weaknesses that could haunt the Illinois senator in the fall. More than half said they would be dissatisfied if Obama was the nominee. Half believe he shares the views of the Rev. Wright, and more than half said he does not share their values. More than half also said that he is not honest and trustworthy. Just under half of the Clinton voters said they would not support Obama in the fall.

Read More Here

Posted by: Hugh Hewitt at 5:34 PM

First, please consider a donation to CaringForChina.org. This organization runs orphanages and medical clinics in China, with a specific mission of caring for abandoned children with specific health needs. One of their orphanages was evacuated in the quake and the children --many with special needs-- are in tents outside their home. Their medical facilities are going to be operating at full tilt for the foreseeable future and your help will go directly to victims of the disaster. CFCC has opened a special earthquake fund. You can contribute online or send a check to:

Caring For China
3300 S. Fairview
Santa Ana, CA 92782

Thank you.

American Exceptionalism is not just a Slogan:

Americans always come to the aid of others. We do it out of our God given innate sense of duty. We do it because we are a compassionate nation. We do it because we have the means. We have the means because our system produces wealth, our determination says never give up, our heritage is one of achievement, our people are strong, and our culture is one of competition. the American way adds up to having the means to help. The American way produces helping people. We give because our people have something to give and our people are caring compassionate givers.

Michael Medved has a great thought on why Americans are who they are:

Respecting - And Recognizing - American D.N.A.

By Michael Medved

In today’s ruthlessly competitive international economy, the United States may benefit from a potent but unheralded advantage: the aggressive edge sustained by the inherited power of American DNA.

The radical notion that our national character stems from genetics as well as culture has always inspired angry controversy; many observers scoff at the whole idea of a unifying hereditary component in our multi-racial, multi-cultural society. Aside from the varied immigrants who now make up nearly 15% of the population, the forebears of today’s Americans journeyed to this continent from Asia, Africa, Latin America and every nation of Europe. Our stark differences in appearance, if nothing else, argue against the concept of common DNA connecting contemporary citizens of wildly divergent ancestry. (more)

We are the people who survive and build the future. We are a people that appreciate our success and use it to go back and help others. I believe that American Exceptionalism has been one of the best thing to happen to the world and humanity. Our compassion requires us to continue on the path of the American Culture that has made us what we are today. Back peddling like the Leftist want will be unhealthy for the human population. We must take our heritage, our system, our God given compassion, and yes even our DNA into the next century and continue to be the Shining City on the Hill.

Dennis Prager echos my thought with this post:

If On the Wrong Track, Why Go Left?

By Dennis Prager

Today's most widely accepted political belief is that because an unprecedentedly high percentage of Americans -- 81 percent -- believe the country is headed in the wrong direction, the Republicans are headed for a major defeat this coming November.

If this is the case, it can only be because the American voter translates "headed in the wrong direction" as "because the Republicans have had their way, so it's time to let the Democrats have theirs."

That should not be the case. I count myself as one of the 81 percent who believes America is headed in the wrong direction, and that is precisely why I am voting Republican. Moreover, I suspect I am not alone among the 81 percent in ascribing the wrong track to the leftist, not the conservative, influence on American life. (more).

This is not the time for America to circle the wagons:

This is, as in the past, a time for America to move forward, challenge our enemies, confront our fears, and achieve our goals. We must continue to aim high and run the race to the end. We must also teach our children that American Exceptionalism is a good thing that works for the entire world. Some might malign our strengths and drive as imperialist, but they fail to look at our compassion which tempers our power. I am not saying that we have to militarily conquer the world like a modern day Alexander the Great. But we must not back down from being a role model and helper to others. We must continue to show the world the American Way and keep waving our banner of compassion, strength and freedom so that others will take up the banner and strive toward these high ideals.

1. Barack H. Obama : 1883 Delegati
2. Hillary R. Clinton : 1717 Delegati

Prossimo appuntamento il 20 Maggio con le Primarie in Kentucky e Oregon. In questi due Stati verranno messi in pali 125 Delegati. Non resta che aspettare a martedi prossimo per scoprire se verrà messa la parola fine a questa tortura democratica o se bisognerà rimandare alle ultime tre Primarie del Primo e del 3 Giugno prossimi, dove in Puerto Rico, in Montana e in South Dakota verranno messi in palio gli ultimi 107 Delegati elettivi (Superdelegati a parte).