Obama did everything he could think of to decrease the margin of Hillary Clitnon's expected win in the Kentucky primary last Tuesday, short of donning a fringe leather jacket and a coonskin cap and killing a bear with his trusty musket. He opened three times as many offices in the state, and sent out fliers asserting his belief in Christianity. One such flier depicted him standing with a large cross in the background. It was an effort he probably realized was doomed to failure, which is why he made only one appearance in the state-and which was the real reason he lost by such a large margin.
True, he would have handily lost anyway. I concede that this would have been due, in large measure, to both racism and to perceptions, still widely believed by many, that Barak Obama is a Muslim. Nevertheless, I hold that, while it is obvious that these were factors with a segment of Kentucky Democratic voters, they make up a minority of those who voted against Obama.
Had he addressed these concerns directly, and especially had he appeared more in the state, he might have whittled Hillary's margin down to just a little bit more than ten percent, but certainly not under that amount. It is highly doubtful he would have pulled within twenty percentage points, actually.
The real major reason for this, however, is not racism or concerns about Islam. While these concerns, I repeat, were doubtless factors with a segment of the voting populace, they were not the most important considerations. The major reasons are as follows-
1. Hillary Clinton campaigned extensively in the state, making appearances at such venues as Covington's May Fest, among others, while both Bill and Chelsea also campaigned tirelessly and extensively across the state. Bill even appeared in front of the Madison County Courthouse. They gave the vast majority of the people of Kentucky their first and possibly last chance to see a former President of the United States, or a major candidate.
This is in fact the first time Kentucky has been a factor in a Presidential nominating contest. The Clintons played it for all it was worth, while Obama passed up a golden opportunity-not so much to win this primary, but to pave the way for instilling some good will for the upcoming general election, when these votes will be all the more important.
2. The Clintons are very popular with rank-and-file Kentucky Democrats, at least among those who are dependable and regular voters. Bill Clinton won the state twice and is now fondly remembered by them, for the most part.
3. There is a perception that Barak Obama is the most liberal member of the Senate. Whether this is true or not is irrelevant. The fact is, that is the perception, and perception translates into votes. This in fact might well be the most important consideration of all. Kentuckians, for the most part, are moderate to conservative.
Where Obama is considered a liberal, Hillary Clinton is perceived as more left of center.
It is really unfair to lump all Kentucky Democrats, or Kentuckians in general, as racists based on the fact that Hillary Clinton, the centrist wife of a popular former President, defeated the black candidate-who was all but absent from the state during the campaign while she, her popular husband, and well-liked daughter traversed practically every corner of the state non-stop.
Most of the same Kentucky Democrats who voted against Obama, being as I said politically moderate to conservative, rejected Obama largely on those grounds. By the same token, a great many of them-maybe even most of them-would have had no problem crossing party lines to vote for a J C Watts or an Alan Keyes.
For that matter, even more Kentucky Democrats might well jump at the chance to vote for a Democratic political moderate such as Harold Ford Jr. In all the above cases, it would depend on who their opponent was. It would by and large depend on their stands on the issues, not their race.
If one of those candidates were to run a credible race in Kentucky, with a credible chance of winning (unlike Keyes in his current quixotic bid) and did well, or even won, the same people trashing Kentucky by throwing out the race card now would be screaming "Uncle Tom".
So just who are the racists?
It is easy for CNN to go to the most destitute places in Kentucky with a film crew and portray such a depressed area as one small part of Clay County as typical of the state. Honesty and integrity does not come easily to these purveyors of political pornography, it seems. Their point seems to be that the entire state of Kentucky is a state full of ignorant, uneducated rednecks-how could they not be racist?
The real question to be asked is how could one expect an unbiased and objective analysis of the recent Democratic Kentucky primary from the likes of this bunch? I am, sadly, not surprised in the least.
John McCain, although already the Republican Party presumptive nominee, won his contest with 72% of the vote. In other words, 28% of Kentucky Republican voters took the time and trouble to go to the polls to vote against the man who has already won his party's nomination.
So I guess that means a large percentage of Kentucky Republicans hate the elderly? Or maybe they just despise old military veterans? No, I have the strange idea they merely expressed their disapproval of John McCain because, in fact, John McCain is a known RINO.
Why try to invent an alternate reality when the one we have tells us all you need to know?
6 comments:
Watch for the Old Yeller Solution
but Gambone will die at the hands of Ren before you.
The truth about Obama is that he is a marxist. The fact that Commies like Graeme Striecher or Ren do not support him is proof of how Central Palestinomania and Joo obsessions are to Commies. In fact it is apparent that Graeme's Joo obsession is greater than the Arabs in Gaza working Obama.
1 Obama wants health reforms
A Graeme Striecher is stuck on Jews.
2 Obama wants housing reforms
A Graeme Striecher isstuck on Jews.
3 Obama wants to seriously pull out
of Iraq
A Graeme Striecher is still stuck on Jews.
Where else does Obama disagree with the commies. Graeme Striecher mumbles some boggle garbage about
Wall Street financiers that again is a code word for Jews.
The communist reaction to Obama is far more interesting than the primaries. Even bomb throwing terrorists like Ayers endorse Obama
but not Graeme.
Graeme seems more interested in Arabs across the world than in the concerns of the folks up the road who need health care.
To me, anarchism is nothing but a tactic, not a permanent state, limited to such things as encouraging most people not to vote in the upcoming election until we get the candidates we really want. Such a move would render any elected government illegitimate. As a group, we could make it impossible to enforce any laws we did not agree with, provided we stood firm.
That is probably far into the future, if ever, and more than likely it will never happen.
Democrats have been socialist lite since the days of FDR. Wilson laid the groundwork to some extent, but for the most part, prior to the Depression, it was actually the Democrats who were both the social and the economic conservatives.
Republicans have always been in the tank for big business, but they did love their tariffs. They were always the social liberals, from the days of Lincoln.
A perfect Democratic President would be equal parts FDR, Truman, Polk, and Cleveland. FDR for his ability to inspire and do what was necessary in an emergency, Truman for his straight talk and common sense, Polk for his martial inclinations (when perceived necessary) and patriotism, and Cleveland for his quiet strength, determination, economic conservatism, and stability. I'll add a little bit of Jackson for his willingness to tell the courts to take a hike.
He, like Jefferson, was right about them in theory, if not in specific application. Their power should be strictly limited and should have never been put on a par with the executive and legislative branches.
I don't know how much of a Marxist Obama is. I have defended him over a lot of things where I think he has been unfairly maligned. This does not mean I agree with his politics-though there are some occasions where I do, at least somewhat.
As for Graeme, I think he tends to judge all Muslims by the example of a Muslim in-law. I don't know that for sure, though.
Leftists like Graeme don't support Obama mainly because they consider him to be financed by corporate interests, while his talk of change is just electioneering by way of vague generalities. Which, if you would be fair, I think you would agree that many people, such as yourself perhaps, feel the same way.
They want him to be an open advocate of their positions. Which means, of course, that he would lose the election to anybody to the right of Ward Chruchill.
Lets compare Graeme with Mr Beamish.
Mr B is at odds with McCain in many
areas. However, Mr B is realistic enough to know that no political figure will ever agree with him 100%.One can also see some of this in Craig Bardo.
Obama wants to get out of Iraq. Obama wants to reform health care.
Obama wants to help those hurt by the real estate bubble. Obama wants a less agressive foreign policy.
Graeme agrees with him on all those issues but is hung up on Israel. Even Retrograde Eye while dismissing Mamet derisively calls him a zionist.
The Jew obsession is quite obvious on the blogs that often read like the Protocols of the Elders of Zion
mixed in a blender with Marx and Chomsky. Sorry but the proud internationalist is more concerned about Arabs in Gaza than the folks next door, then he wonders why we call him unamerican.
Ah, it's all brand recognition. Kentucky's going to McCain in the general anyway, but if they have to choose between Obama and Clinton, they'll go with the one they know better. It's not rocket science.
Rufus-
Obama really should have spent some time in Kentucky. At the very least, he might have picked enough a few more delegates, maybe enough to seal the nomination by the time the convention is held. I can understand though why he would be wary.
It is undeniable that a significant percentage of votes against him were based on racial reasons. Kentuckians are funny. I know of one instance where a statewide candidate was told by a rural voter, to his face, that while he seemed like a nice fellow, he could not vote for a black man.
By the same token, I honestly feel these kinds of people are the minority, and most of them tend to vote Republican in national elections anyway, even though registered Democrats. I also think that, at least to an extent, it's more a matter of liberal politics, more than it is actually race, even when the expressed reason is race.
When a lot of these voters mention race, what they are really talking about is problems with such things as Affirmative Action, school busing, welfare and reparations.
Also, Bob Barr is probably going to be running as a Libertarian candidate this fall, and he might well draw a lot of votes away from McCain, who a great many of these kinds of voters-and others as well-also do not like.
With Barr siphoning as much as ten percent of the Republican vote from McCain, and with another ten percent possibly of Republicans not voting at all, and maybe even another ten percent of Republicans actually going to the extent of voting Democratic, I can see Obama yet eking out a victory in Kentucky.
But, he would have to put at least a little bit of effort into it.
Yeah, southern VA was the same way. There were some old school racists, but they were definitely in the minority. I think what bothers me is that when they talk about this stuff in the media they act like everyone south of the Mason-Dixon line is a bigot.
Obama probably should do more campaigning there now. On the other hand, he seems to learn from his mistakes, so it might happen.
Post a Comment