WOW! What cool and thoughtful dialogue we have going in here. Thanks to everybody who is arguing and discussing with respect. This is a cool thread.

This is a diary that seeks to explore the mystery of why the democratic primary electorate in the Appalachian region votes so differently than the rest of the country.

It seems that some people want to give West Virginia an outsized influence in the debate over whether or not Barack Obama has a problem securing the vote of blue collar white voters. I do not pretend to be able to dissect the psychology of these voters, and certainly do not ascribe to them any nefarious motivations such as fear of an African American candidate. But for whatever reason WVa's white voters turned out for Clinton in numbers that are different from white voters in most other parts of the country.

Yesterday, another poster had a chart up that showed the counties nationwide in which Hillary Clinton had won by margins larger than 65-35. Almost all of these counties came in Appalachia, and the only hole in the Appalachian section of the map at this point were the states of WVa and KY. Filling them in completes the cycle of Appalachian regions that Clinton can expect to win overwhelmingly. Again, why this is, I have no idea but it is so clearly regionally delineated that I feel I can say that with good confidence that Obama has a problem among Appalachian voters (and I say this as a strong Obama supporter).

At this point in this long race, Obama has won in predominantly white states on the west coast, the plains, the midwest, and the southeast. This demonstrates a breadth of support that is not shaken by the mysterious loss of support in Appalachia. It is foolish to suggest that because Obama seems to not connect with voters in Appalachia that he can't win the general, or even that he wouldn't be as strong a candidate as HRC.

For just a wee, brief moment on late Tuesday night early Weds morning this website was over-run with a valuable commodity that has been sorely lacking at this site--a realistic portrait of the state of the Democratic race. Todd and Jerome both posted front page stories that indicated a nuanced sense of the race, that acknowleged that Obama was the presumptive nominee and that had thoughtful analyses about why this was and what to do moving forward.

Since that brief window, we have seen some major regression on this front and a drift back to the land of "she can still pull it off, the race is still fluid" absurdity. How long are you guys going to allow this site to be so far outside the drift of reality based politics. We are counting on you to become leaders in the coming fight against McCain. Please provide us with more of the kinds of reality based blogging you posted ever so briefly this week.

I say this not to be inflammatory but to point out the value in what I am advocating. Todd's post on Tuesday night provoked some of the most thoughtful exchanges between Obama and Clinton supporters that I have seen on line. This kind of "airing the laundry" is exactly what we are all going to need to repair the rifts that have developed.

So, consider this an open plea for well rounded, realistic discussion of the state of the race. Continuing to hype Clinton's chances in the face of all evidence is not serving anybody but the people who are invested in holding their grudges.

Thanks in advance.

Here's the link to Todd's thread Tuesday night and subsequent valuable discussion....http://www.mydd.com/story/2008/5/7/53225/37686#commenttop

A few days ago Jerome posted something that irked me, that somehow there was some "Obama of February" who no longer exists. I desperately wanted to believe he was wrong and tonight I feel confident that he was. Both in the electoral results and in his oratory tonight Barack Obama was every bit the electrifying and paradigm shifting candidate that he was in winning 11 primaries in a row in February. He showed a side of himself in that speech that clearly demonstrated why he is running, what he stands for, and why he loves the country. And he returned again and again to the notion of uniting the country across all manner of artificial boundaries. This was the Obama that electrified the country earlier in this campaign and I hope that Jerome will wake up Wednesday morning and concede this point.

And to top it off I think it was the gas tax argument that put him back on his game. As much as Jerome wanted to believe that it was a winning issue for clinton I think tonight's results show that Obama got the better of this argument by trusting the American people to understand the truth.

What a night!!!!

I feel queasy saying the words "David Brooks, correct" together but he sure has captured the zeitgeist of the Dem race right now in his column....

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/06/opinio n/06brooks.html?_r=1&hp&oref=slo gin

As much as I am generally well disposed to the concept of both a woman president and an African American president, in as much as these people might bring a needed fresh perspective to how to govern in these confusing times, I am massively disheartened by the fact that Hillary Clinton seems to feel the need to out-macho Obama to win. What a shame to take the idea of a woman president and instead attempt to be even more and bigger of the same, a saber-rattling, elitist-bashing, "I hate egghead economists" Bush lite. Hate to say it that way but this is the kind of primary campaign she has been running since Super Tuesday.

Thoughts?

Last night conformed pretty closely to what both sides in this Democratic nominating battle expected to happen. It was a substantial but not overwhelming victory for Hillary Clinton in Pennsylvania.

The Clinton supporters use this as more evidence that Obama can't win the big swing states (conveniently forgetting the home of their own campaign headquarters Virginia, Wisconsin, Missouri etc). Obama supporters, invoking "the math" retort that last night was the last chance for her to dent his lead and she didn't win big enough (conveniently forgetting that a 10 point loss is not a win). In other words nothing has changed at all following 6 weeks of a campaign that seemed to last forever and revolved around a series of non-issues that sullied both candidates.

As someone who fervently hopes that Obama wins but who has voted twice for Hillary Clinton in the senate, I feel compelled to point out that whoever wins this nominating contest will win the presidency and we have only ourselves to blame if somehow we should blow it. The energy, activity and passion on the Democratic side so far outweighs the Republican side that we need only get out of our own way to trounce them in November.

But we really need to figure out how to wrap this nominating contest up in a way that doesn't fatally wound whoever wins. Last night's analysis was full of "negative campaigning worked for Clinton" statements that made me feel ill. The NYTimes editorial this morning is a good reminder that the party, and therefore the candidates, must be mindful of the message and image that they are putting out in front of the country in this moment when all eyes are on us.

We can argue about who did what first or who made the most incendiary statements about the other but the fact of the matter is it was an unpleasant, pointless, nasty battle in PA that didn't speak to the issues of the Pennsylvania electorate and therefore not something anyone should be proud of, win or lose.

I really hope that the message that the Clinton campaign takes out of this is not lets do more of the same in Indiana. At the same time I hope that the Obama campaign doesn't take the message that they need to fight back harder and nastier. I would like Obama to pivot towards the General Election for the most part and stop getting in the mud with Clinton. He needs to get back to doing what captivated the country in the first place and he will be OK. In other words lets hope as a party that the remainder of the campaign represents us better than PA did.

It looks like now Indiana is the line in the sand for the continuation of the contest. NC should deliver a win for Obama of considerably greater margin than PA, so a win in Indiana is absolutely a must for Clinton. This should be interesting, given that the Chicago media market gives Obama a platform to over come the inherent demographic advantages that Clinton enjoys in the rural parts of the state. But also, given the way this campaign has played out nobody should be surprised if this next line in the sand is deferred just the way all the others have been.

I have given money to the Obama campaign and done some blogging  in support of Barack. I will continue to do these things in the hopes that he gets the nomination. But more than anything I am just sick of this contest now, sick of seeing Democrats sliming each other and fighting amongst ourselves. We need our nominee and fast. I think Obama, given the chance to fully engage McCain rather than having to battle a two-pronged war, is easily the stronger candidate for our side. But if Clinton wins the nomination I will be here too, because I know how important this is. As I said earlier, there is too much momentum, energy and activity on the Democratic side to be denied because of infighting.

How many people can say they will support the nominee no matter what?

I am so sick of the rec list being dominated by the divisive, Republcan talking points of the Clinton supporters in re the "Bittergate" story. There are so many levels on which their take on this non-story is wrong and damaging to our chances of winning the election.

Lets start with the statements themselves. Obama, in his original discussion in SF, was making a point that generations of Democratic candidates (including Bill Clinton--see link http://politicalwire.com/archives/2008/0 4/13/historical_quote_of_the_day.html) have been making for years, namely that Republicans have managed to control the voting patterns of a majority of working class white voters with appeals to their religion, to their appreciation for the right to bear arms, to their fear of illegal immigration, all the while passing legislation on trade and taxation that makes them poorer by the day.

Try to make something of it if you will but the man was speaking a well regarded truth. For Hillary to try to paint this as condescending or elitist shows that she truly is willing to do or say anything to get elected, including adopting and propogating manipulative Republican methods to tar her opponent. I am having none of it and I call bullshit.

In fact, if this is the level in which Democratic politics has sunk to then neither candidate has a chance of winning in November because it is a certainty that the republicans will try to paint Hillary with the same kinds of things (remember the "Stand By Your Man" episode in 1992 for instance). I feel certain that Hillary Clinton has a similar analysis of the dynamics of working class white voters and is merely too chicken shit to make the same kind of statement. For her to get the nomination on the back of this kind of parroting of right wing thinking would be the death knell of our chances in the fall.

Please Obama supporters, lets get this or something like it onto the Rec list to show the outside world that this site has degenerated completely into a swamp of right wing talking points.

This is well beyond the beginning of the end of the Clinton campaign for Presidency. With Leahy and Dodd (Obama supporters no doubt, but nationally recognized Dem leaders as well) calling for her to step aside, reports of Clinton superdelegates saying they will go with the pledged delegate winner (see TPM), Bob Casey breaking his "no endorsement" stance, and the general settling in of the "Clinton can't win" theme in the MSM, the writing is well beyond being on the wall. The writing is the wall at this point. How long Hillary decides to stay in beyond May 6th could well decide what her future in the Democratic party will be. I hope that  she decides to pull out on May 7th, as that will be a date by which she will have had one last chance to pull out a miracle (winning all three of PA, NC and IN) and barring said miracle there will be no chances left for her to significantly alter the dynamics of the race (at least in a democratic and honorable way). So fight on until May 7th Hillary and then if the race is still in the current Obama vise-grip, please step aside. You have a long and illustrious senate career ahead of you and all of us democrats will be supportive of you in that role. Please don't make me (a two time Bill Clinton presidential voter and two time Hillary Clinton Senate voter) and others like me rethink our position that you in the end are a loyal democrat.

I must admit I was skeptical by the posts yesterday stating that there would be no new memberships for a week and the warnings about bannings etc, but whatever happened I must say that I am pleasantly surprised by the tenor of the debate that I have seen here today. And the front page posts have been balanced and nuanced and presenting a variety of view points. Well done admins and thanks.