bert, you are a paranoid, paranoid, paranoid and petty person. Because you actually spout this lie about Obama alienating “white working-class” people(guess you didn’t see Obama’s constituency in MI today or NC last Tuesday) it makes it really hard to believe you have any credibility whatsoever.

I don’t call you a racist, but who keeps bringing up race? Hillary supporters. It’s not us, and don’t even try to bait back into these divisive and ineffective talking points.

You’re biggest problem, which is also Hillary Clinton’s problem(id est: the reason she’s running her campaign), is because you believe Americans won’t elect a dark-skinned American for president. You care deeply about the future of this country in the next administration, and feel Obama’s race will lose him the election.

This is the way Hillary Clinton, and a large number of her supporters, have felt since Obama started gaining momentum. It’s not because you’re racist or prejudiced. It’s because you know there is racism in this country, and fear it will doom the Democratic campaign.

It’s the fundamental reason people still support Hillary in any form, and people from her campaign don’t want to waste their time on what they feel is a naive dream because they were told by several very important African-Americans not to trust the American public.

Well, these concerns are legitimate, but you have to accept that when a brand name like Clinton loses to the “unknown and an inexperienced candidate” there is an authenticity to these rhetorical claims of hope and transcending the racial divide. Hillary Supporters still deny this, and you’re entitled to be cynical shut-ins, who will exploit talking points to evade seeming like a bigot when it is so obvious you are not.

I feel genuinely sorry for all of you because you could just tow the line for the clear-cut winner, and campaign your heart out along with the rest of us (just like people could elect Kucinich if they weren’t so convinced of this myth of “electability") and make this change happen. Instead, you just pass everything off as a big fantasy for youths and jaded blacks who are both cast aside after each election in the past thirty years.

There is no way in Hell I’m going to let your sympathies destroy this campaign, and promise victory in the Fall. Promise.

Well, Aegrus, you, like so many Obama supporters, continue to act like an ostrich and keep your head buried in the sand and refuse to accept or even acknowledge that huge problems exist in getting Obama elected in November.

You and so many others continue to view that Obama’s electability problems are independent from his race. That is, anyone who brings up any issue or any problem with his candidacy is either a racist or dumb-ass, and maybe both.  Obama supporters silence any and all dissent by charging racism. You refuse to admit or even see that he has character issues (elitism being one) that turn a certain sector of the electorate off. This tactic of accusing every opponent as a ‘racist’ is counter productive and will make it even more difficult to win in November. It may also make race relations in this country even worse.

I believe that Obama’s nomination and candidacy will be the doom and end of the Democratic Party for generations. The Party cannot ignore the largest majority in America – white working class Americans; except at its own peril.

Come the evening of November 4th there are going to be a lot of very disappointed Obama supporters. And it will have nothing to do with Hillary. The defeat of Obama will be because Obama is an unknown and an inexperienced candidate who will be eaten alive by the Republicans. The defeat will come about because of the hubris of Obama, his campaign and his supporters. There is an old Greek saying. Be careful what you wish for (the nomination.) Because when the gods want to punish you, they give you your wish.

Bert, I wish I could tell you that everything your comment stated was valid, but the facts are to the contrary.

If Obama has any problem with any “segments of voters” it’s because Hillary supporters refuse to correct people when they mistakenly believe him to be a Muslim, to be unpatriotic or rebuke any of the outright lies distributed by either unknown sources or neo-conservative news media. Any Democrat should know better, and it is time the Hill Camp started towing the line because we have a nominee.

“W.VA is historically a red state.”

True enough, cyrena. However, an even more important historical fact is that NO Democrat has won the Presidency without winning West Virginia since Woodrow Wilson did it in 1916.

No matter how you try to slice it, Obama is having trouble with certain segments of voters. And I spent some time trying to find someone who could explain it without further inflaming passions to fever pitch.This is a good site for basically raw data with informed analysis. The following is from Crystal Ball the web site of the University of Virginia’s Center for Politics, run by Director Larry Sabato. The title of this piece is “Obama and Small Town America.”

“…………..As political comments go, it was a self-inflicted “twofer”. Not only was Obama’s sociological analysis delivered in a place synonymous with permissive liberalism, but also it raised questions about the candidate’s sensitivity to the lives of the hard-working, small-town voters that he was so intensively trying to woo.

Yet as controversial as they were, Obama’s remarks basically have reflected the contours of his vote-getting appeal. By and large, he has succeeded thus far by rolling up the vote in urban areas with their large minority population, and penetrating populous white-collar suburbs and the growing exurbs beyond. Yet in many places where new subdivisions give way to countryside, the Obama vote noticeably begins to ebb. There, his only consistent support has come from the occasional oases of academe that dot the rural landscape.

Al Gore showed back in 2000 that a Democrat can narrowly win the fall popular vote with the cities and a fair chunk of the suburbs. Yet to win the electoral vote, their nominee needs to do a bit better. In short, the party has become quite expert at winning 48 percent of the vote, but it takes a special Democrat able to draw votes in small-town America to bring that extra 3 percent that would ensure victory. Quite possibly, Obama has the political skills to do it. But his tepid primary showings in rural parts of key battleground states such as Missouri, Ohio and Pennsylvania places the burden of proof on him to demonstrate that he can do it.

To be sure, Obama has run quite well in the rural areas of caucus states, where turnouts are low and his impassioned group of supporters can dominate. He also has run well in the rural portions of many Southern primary states from Louisiana to Virginia that boast a significant African-American population. And he has held his own in rural sectors of other primary states where a less partisan, even libertarian brand of politics is practiced, as in upper New England and many sparsely populated states west of the Mississippi River.

********But as the Democratic primary campaign has moved into the key battleground states of the industrial Frost Belt, Obama has hit a brick wall in his bid for rural votes. In Missouri, Obama took only 6 of 116 counties (including the cities of St. Louis and Kansas City). In Ohio, he carried just 5 of 88; in Pennsylvania, only 7 of 67. “********

That last paragraph (which I bracketed in *****) sums up Obama’s problem, and it isn’t going to go away. And to date he has shown little if any desire to solve it. If ignored, the Democrats will lose in November yet again.

http://www.centerforpolitics.org/crystalball/article.p hp?id=FRC2008042401

Nixon said, in public, “Nothing a president does is illegal.” Bill Clinton said, in public, “A president is immune from civil litigation.” Hillary has, in public, proclaimed herself the Democratic nominee for president.

I’ve said it before and I’ve got to say it again, the president of the United States is not an absolute monarch, not a king by divine right, not a Supreme Being, not a Savior.

We give him/her a job.  We pay his/her wages. He/she is an ordinary citizen subjected to the same laws as any other citizen, limited in power by the Constitution which limits us all and, finally, serving at our convenience.  Should he/she become ‘inconvenient’ he/she will be gone.

Yeah, cyrena, I know. Still, I saw an opportunity to refute these inaccuracies with some information which has not been stated in the comments on this article.

I’m always down for a debate, but it’s just too bad most of the Lee & Joe folks who like to comment on TruthDig rarely provide counter arguments. Essentially, the way I’ve tallied arguments around here, it’s Obama Campaign 172 and Clinton Campaign 12.

McCain… still a Red Herring being handled with kids’ gloves. };>

Aegrus,

You should remember that Lee is one of the resident racists on this forum, and probably a repug anyway. I think he still supports bush, so nothing he posts here is of any consequence.

Unless he’s stupid, he knows that Obama has gained his overwhelming support from White Americans, and he can’t take it.

My hope is that Obama’s presidency will have the effect of the ‘white flight’ eras of the past. Just imagine, if these die hard racists all leave, what a better place it would be.

(and, I don’t much care where they go).

But then Hillary might be president and that would suck.

I was just about to remind what Aegrus already has. Obama DID spend time in West Virginia. He spoke there on a few occassions at least, but he did acknowledge that Hillary was way ahead in that state, just as she was in Arkansas.

It’s curious to me that W.VA has as many (28) delegates as they do, but I don’t think it’s fair to say that he ignored W.VA, because he didn’t. He just didn’t hang around until after the voting was over. Hillary had always been expected to win in that state, but as Aegrus pointed out, Obama still got more votes than McCain, and W.VA is historically a red state.

Hillary’s long hard work towards her entiltlement, means Obama should step down, support by bigotry and racism aside, more added feathers in her cap.

AZ, calm down. That kind of divisive hate speech is only contributing to the divide of the Democratic party. I don’t care who started what at any point in this campaign. We have a presumptive nominee, and now is the time to look forward.

Neither of these candidates promote racial supremacy of any kind. Get a grip.

Bill Clinton was the first to introduce “Race” as a primary election issue:

Bill Clinton’s (Carville’s, Farraro’s, Wolfsen’s ) have “WHITE” strategy to help produce a victory for Hillary –play the race card and then accuse Obama of doing exactly what they are doing.  Disregard facts, practice Rovism within the Democratic Primary, and make RACE LOYALITY the issue.  If the Democrats select Obama as their nominee rather than Hillary, destroy the Democratic Party by helping generate a  victory for John Mc Cain in November. . .

It is the same old “I, me, mine and my ego”centered politics of the  Clintons.

A vote for the Hillary and Billary team (the Hillbilly dirt diggers) is definitely a vote for WHITE race supremacy. If the Democratic Party is to survive with a democratic agenda then Obama must keep her off the ticket .
 
GO OBAMERICA!

Hillary’s stategy:

http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2008/05/09/9995 66.aspx

http://www.newsmax.com/morris/hillary_barack_obama/200 8/05/09/94703.html

The ‘white, blue-collar voters’ tag line is nothing more than a talking point, and is additionally a divisive way of speaking about politics. Florida and Michigan is a dead issue, and Howard Dean has already said they will seat delegates from those states. They probably just won’t have any vote, and can only make cases for or against candidates (which is exactly what the voters did by voting in the MI & FL primaries).

The winner doesn’t step aside for the also ran, Lee. Seeing how he is winning, the idea of his campaign not getting any voters of the Caucasian persuasion is drastically false because the black population of America is still only thirteen percent. Most of Barack Obama’s support comes from White Americans.

non credo, I disagree with your comment whole-heartedly. Obama did spend time in West Virginia, for starters. His campaign has shifted focus, however, to John McCain and the General Election because he has effectively won the Democratic primary campaign. Furthermore, Barack Obama had over ninety-thousand votes in the West Virginia Primary while John McCain only managed a little over eighty-thousand.

Still, on the ground I’ve heard West Virginians state their general election will favor McCain regardless if Hillary or Barack is running. The numbers don’t exactly add up, but I’ll listen to the people of the state. Even more still, Obama will have plenty of time to bridge gaps before the Fall election proceeds.

I find it insulting that your focus is on a demographic instead of the general election, which is more important right now.

Obama should step aside and let Hillary win the Presidency for the Democratic party. Obama’s hollow lead is based upon caucus wins, which are meaningless in the general election ... as well as a lack of support from the essential ‘white blue collar’ voters ... as well as the missing support of both Michigan and Florida ... as well as an inability to win the swing states ... all of which reflect a majority of the popular vote for Hillary Clinton.

The Clintons are popular in West Virgina and Bill and Chelsea campaigned there vigorously.

Sure, many West Virginians probably are reluctant to vote for a guy whose dad was from Africa.

But when the general election comes around, West Virginians will most likely vote for the Democrat.

Thoughts on this in the article:

“Many in West Virginia, Kentucky might ‘kin’ Obama”

AmericanChronicle.com
May 10, 2008
http://www.americanchronicle.com/articles/61415

Author’s site:

Joint Recon Study Group
http://www.jointreconstudygroup.blogspot.com

I went with a group of friends down the Gully - beautiful but death defying- esp high and fast that weekend, but we had Excellent guides (saved our asses) who worked on a variety of rivers around the country (Not locals) And although a rather tongue in cheek comment to NOT Follow the sound of any banjo’s, they did say do not wander off from the camp.
WV is beautiful country - but the living conditons of it’s residents were right out of a horror or depression period movie.Being of Scotch Irish Descent I try not to use the Term ‘HillBilly’ but If it’s true it is not mean. Scared of Them! I was more concerned about my personal safety then I have ever been going into Detroit- I’ve never had a problem a fact which my Frightened white mother doe not accept (no matter how many times she’s gone back to her Hometown and never had a problem either)
If Hillary is basing her ‘electablity’ on how WV supports her - she has not seen the rest of the country- ‘them there are some backward ass MF’ers’

Yes, cmg, let’s make fun of and put down WV voters. While I am sure there is still racism in America, voters who prefer Clinton are not necessarily racist.

Your use of the term “undereducated” is very problematic. Just because someone does not have a college degree does not make them ignorant or stupid. Your entire post is demeaning to the good people of West Virginia. And where did you get the 85% figure? A source would be helpful.

Just remember, that NO Democratic Presidential candidate has won the White House without wining West Virginia since 1916.

But the Democratic Party Rules, as I have pointed out numerous times before, are not being followed. I, and others here, have even posted, cited, quoted the actual rules before, and you have said you were not interested in reading or actually knowing what they are. You just want to try and clobber people with what you think they are or what you want them to be.

Independent voters know what they are signing up for when they go to register to vote at the Board of Elections.  It is the Independent’s choice. And an Independent can change that choice anytime they want.Plus many states allow some crossover. So again, no one is disenfranchised. They choose how they want to vote in the primary. Everyone can vote in the General without claiming a Party affliation. Again, no disenfranchisement.

Independents pay for their Independent vote. If crossover is not allowed Independents can and DO vote on issues ballot initiatives. Independents are not being “disallowed” to vote, nor are they paying for something they do not use. They freely choose how they want to vote in the primary - on a ‘D’ ballot or a ‘R’ ballot or an ‘I’ ballot.

Protecting Freedom = Tomahawk Missile in Your Face?

You’re silly.

I don’t take this win as any kind of game-changer, and no one should. This is a blip in a campaign which has already finished. Congratulations to Hillary Clinton for winning a state. She deserves it, I guess.

There is no momentum change, though. Anyone who thinks there is, is sadly mistaken.

Yeah, I get annoyed when people start talking about states like West Virginia and Kentucky with contempt. Yeah, there are some backwoods folk in those states, but the reality is these states are amongst the hardest hit and most economically depressed in our entire country. By the large, people in these states, as well as Ohio and Arkansas, can’t afford internet and might not even be able to get cable news.

Not to mention, they have the highest rate of people without a bachelor’s degree in the country. These folks are struggling, and it isn’t fair to refer to them in derogatory fashion. They need help from representatives who will actually fight for them in our government.

West Virginia voted for the only person they know because the majority of that area is too economically stretched to afford any kind of reliable media outlet.

There is no rule stating Super Delegates must support who their state choses. Pledged delegates aren’t breaking the law to switch votes either. It is not a perfect system, but it isn’t illegal.

Since you claim to be ‘another Florida Democrat,’ you are also well aware of the fact most of our state didn’t care at all about having their votes be superficial without the teeth of delegate support. No one stopped people from voting, it just doesn’t effect the outcome via delegates. Our people understood that, and DENIED a re-vote.

Everyone understands rules are rules. Not just Obama’s people. Please drop this stupid, stupid argument because it is invalid.

In reply to melviajackson, as you probably know, Sen. Clinton did apologize for the ‘sniper fire’ story. And she has said, if we knew then what we know now, I would never have voted to authorize military intervention in Iraq. But let me ask you, has Sen. Obama ever apologized for misleading voters that “Sen. Clinton thinks you don’t have insurance because you don’t want it. She would force you to buy insurance even if you can’t afford it.” The truth is that Sen. Clinton’s program makes insurance affordable to 100% of Americans. Why did Sen. Obama distribute this falsehood? To get votes, of course. It was at that point that Sen. Obama lost my respect as a candidate for the President of the United States. I want a President who tells the truth to the American people, or at least apologizes when she or he makes an error, as all of we human beings do from time to time.

We are all looking at a future economic reality which is more and more similar to West Virginia’s current economic stress. Gas prices will soon exceed $4 or $5/gallon, dragging food, pharmaceutical, and utility prices upward also. West Virginian’s voted for the strongest fighter to get them economic relief. That is the essential factor in their vote, survival--not race. Their educated youth have to leave the state to find good paying jobs. This state is pro-education. Obama outspent Sen. Clinton 2-1 in the W. VA campaign, but the votes went to Sen. Clinton by 41 points because she has shown herself to be the strongest fighter for economic change.

Obama supporters frequently use the phrase “rules are rules”.  But, Obama is not for the rules if they do not help him. He disregards the rule that superdelegates are not designated, or tied systematically to the popular vote, or the delegate count in their district. No, he does not think this rule is right, and he calls on superdelegates to disregard that rule, and vote as their districts or states voted. But wait, look at Gov. Richardson. Obama has accepted the Gov.’s support, even though his state voted its majority for Sen. Clinton. It’s hard to keep up with which side Sen. Obama is on in this issue--except it’s clear that whatever hurts Sen. Clinton’s position, he is for.

This penalty for infraction of the primaries scheduling rule is unconstitutional, I believe. The power to disenfranchise voters (other than convicted felons), does not exist in our Constitition. No county, state, or federal government body or court may disenfranchise American citizens from voting. I am aware that a lower court upheld the right of the Democratic Party to make its own rules. However, I do not believe that this penalty would be upheld in higher courts. In any case, this penalty is very unwise for the Democratic Party. It weakens the base of support in the Party for the general election. FL and MI are large, populous states with a large number of delegates. These states are needed for a solid Democrat victory in November.

One alternative penalty the Rules & Bylaws Committee should consider at their meeting May 31st, to increase justice and strengthen the Democratic Party base for November, would be to penalize FL and MI Democrats’ assignment or election to the national committees for a period of 3-6 months. This would not disrupt the functioning of current committees, it would only prohibit assignment or election to committees for a future, designated period. The Party needs the votes of Democrats in these two states in November. Many are feeling ‘unvalued’ at this time. The Party still has the opportunity to change that. If the results of our votes are changed, many of us will still be disenfranchised, and will still feel ‘unvalued’. Obama has said publicly that he will accept the decision of the Rules Committee. He needs the voters of these 2 states as well as Sen. Clinton does. Let us have a just election that we can be proud of, an election that takes into account all our votes, one citizen one vote, as our great Constitution provides.

Congratulations to Sen Clinton.  15 more wins like this one and she’ll be in business...oh wait, there aren’t 15 more contests.  Well, at least her ego has been soothed.

So it is not “disenfranchisement” for an independent voter’s tax dollars to fund the primary but then be disallowed to vote?

And your argument is that there are rules and laws.  On the other hand, you suggest that MI/FL voters were disenfranchised...regardless of the rules.

So, in other words, rules and laws are ok when you like them.

And if “every voice should be heard”, where is your concern for the independent voters?  Oh, never mind, they only count if they’re going to vote for your candidate.

It all comes down to one thing for me now.
I don’t want to see Hillary Clinton’s face on my television screen anymore, at all...ever.

I am beginning to find out possibly thousands of folks who give their lives in service to the United States and vote by absentee ballot, from abroad, may have been disenfranchised. Reports that following sending in their absentee ballot, they received notice that their vote would not be counted, because the delegates had already been selected by caucus. Interesting that they were not informed about the caucus when their absentee ballots were mailed to them.

Of course this didn’t happen in every state, but those who had a caucus. I suspect there are thousands out there who still don’t know their votes were never counted. But then I cant think of a recent election when there hasn’t been reports of thousands of absentee ballots from overseas being misplaced in one state or another, until it was too late to count them. Katherine Harris did it in 2000!

Florida in 2000, Utah and Washington in 2004. Who knows how many times this year! Probably happens a lot more than we realize.

As for Maanis comment, “So I wouldn’t put too much weight on this.” That is precisely why election result rigging gets done. Because nobody wants to put too much weight on it.

And there are folks in West Virginia who still smart from the mainstreammedia focus on their whiteness and lack of education. I don’t have to watch mainstreammedia to know that, there was plenty of that right here ... on this site!

Hillary launched it and the pundits picked it up.

She focused on it, celebrated it. Her base. [Her’s and Bushes.] And yes, there are many, many folks out there who voted once for Bush and are still trying to overcome the stigma of stupid. In fact many of them wont even admit anymore ... they did.

Purging, as happened in Pennsylvania in 2008 and Florida in 2000 is another effective method. Nobody knows till they show up to vote they cant. And targeting those who’s vote might alter the sought after outcome is easier than most realize. Thanks to marketing demographics, it’s real easy!

So inadequate ballots, purging, broken machines, closing polls early, opening them late, and absentee ballots are just a few very easy ways an outcome can be controlled. Maybe it’s been going on forever and we just never noticed how bad it was until the Supremes selected Bush.

Like the General [who always votes absentee and democrat] said, “After what happened in Florida in 2000, I’ll wonder for the rest of my life if my vote has ever been counted!”

Louise,

I definitely ‘feel’ this with you…

“...Do I begrudge Hillary a win? Not at all. I just wish we could go back to the days when you could actually BELIEVE someone actually won.

Whenever a major win is predicted in the face of the other guy gaining speed, for ever more there will be a cloud of doubt over that win. Something else we can thank Bush and the DISHONEST republican party for.

After 17 years of casting my useless democratic ballots in Texas, (and just after The Coup of 2000) I signed myself up as an ‘Independent’ when I returned home. Just paranoid I guess. My own political ‘whatevers’ hadn’t changed, but I just didn’t trust the system. I don’t know what else I thought they might be able to ‘pull’ (because my own mind probably couldn’t envision it) but for whatever the reasons, (not well formed by any real logic) I somehow thought that putting myself in an ‘independent’ category would provide me with more options.

Now for whatever the reasons, it hasn’t been an issue for me since then, because I always vote for the democratic candidates anyway for my state. (rare exception for Greens in some local offices).

HOWEVER, it DID present a minor issue for me in these presidential primaries. Since I vote by mail and/or absentee vote (whichever you wanna call it) I received what I call a ‘generic’ ballot for the primaries. In short, it didn’t have the option for me to select any candidates that are selected via the election process. I could only vote on propositions, and there no NAMES on my ‘independent’ ballot, for me to select. (I’ve never seen anything like that before, and I’ve been voting a long time).

Now it DID provide this ‘option’ for me to request a partisan ballot from either the Democratic Party, or another one that I can’t remember the name of. American Something Party...Still, this was all very strange to me, and it also made me think that my idea of deciding to be ‘independent’ for a while, had surely backfired.

Anyway, that said, I was able to go through the process that was directed by the election folks here in California. I had to bring that non-partisan ballot to the voting booth with me on primary election day, and exchange it for a Dem ballot, which I was then able to submit for a vote that included my presidential choice.

BUT, I said that to say that there are a whole bunch of other people who vote by mail in California, who may not have had that choice. Fortunately, I WAS able to appear in person at the voting booths that day, but that isn’t necessarily an option for many who vote by mail, for whatever the reasons.

Now I have no idea how many democratic leaning voters may have been registered as independents, (or even what I expected to gain from such, since I’ve ALWAYS been a democrat until the Coup of 2000) but I’m willing to venture that it may very well have been the thing that gave HRC the majority of the vote here in my state.

Then again, I could be wrong, since California certainly does have its conservative democrats, as well as its share of repugs, and HRC would have been the choice for either. Matter of fact, Hillary made a surprise visit to my campus just prior to the primary, and there were a few, (not many, but still a showing) that did attend. (we didn’t find out she was going to be here until that day).

OTOH, Obama did not appear on my campus, but DID appear at the City College, where he had a much larger audience than that enjoyed by HRC here. So, it’s hard to ‘project’ these days,or even speculate after the fact. Still,I’m convinced that it’s because of that ‘cloud of doubt’ created by the deceit of the republican party.

Louise:

First, an election can be called within the first few minutes because statistics show that you only need 3% of precincts reporting to “know” who will win - even if the size of their victory is in doubt.  Once in a while, they get it wrong (e.g., Missouri), but most of the time they are correct.

Second, re voter disenfranchisement due to the type of ballot for Reps, Dems and Inds, this has been true in other states as well, going in BOTH directions (i.e., affecting Obama voters or Clinton voters, depending on the state).  So I wouldn’t put too much weight on this.

Finally, I’m not sure where you get the idea that anyone (Clinton, Obama, the media) has somehow labeled West Virginians “dumb.” I follow both MSM and AM continuously, and I have seen nothing to indicate that there has been any denigration - overt or subtle - of West Virginia voters.  Indeed, I have heard both Obama and Clinton “speak” (or “pander” - take your pick) to the voters in WV “as a whole,” and not as some sort of “rubes.”

Peace.

West Virginia Secretary of State Disenfranchising Thousands of Obama Voters?

Separate but unequal voting systems in West Virginia threaten to disenfranchise independent voters.

http://www.alternet.org/blogs/peek/83823

“I got a call today from Mark Levine, the election protection attorney for Donna Edwards and one in whom I have a good amount of trust, and he told me about a brewing problem in West Virginia which will probably end up disenfranchising thousands of Obama voters. Here’s the nub of the issue. West Virginia has an open primary, which means you can vote even if you are an independent. However, if you are a Democrat or a Republican, you are automatically given a normal ballot in a primary. If you are an independent, you are pointed to a touch screen device which does not list a Presidential choice.”
“If you are an independent, you have the option of requesting a Democratic or Republican ballot so you can vote in the Presidential primary, but you have to request it. And unless you know to request it, you will end up with no vote in the Presidential primary. The Secretary of State has decided not to inform people of this fact, which will leave potentially thousands of voters in West Virginia who came to vote for Obama without a choice.”

http://www.alternet.org/blogs/peek/83823

I have a question. How come the media can call an outcome at less than 1% of districts reporting?

For that matter, how come the media can call an election before the first ballet is cast?

Interviews with voters?

Or interviews with vote counters?

There was a time when I tended to accept the “projections” by the experts. Not any more. Bush and 2000 took care of that.

You know what’s the most contemptible thing about all this? Clinton and mainstreammedai and yes, even Obama have bought into the notion that West Virginia voters are white, blue collar, uneducated and not to bright. So what makes that contemptible? That Hillary appeals to them? That Obama doesn’t? That mainstreammedia labels?

Naw. What makes that contemptible is the good voters in West Virginia have been labeled dumb. And the dishonest folks who control the count will get busy and prove they are ... even though they aren’t. And the good voters in West Virginia will have to smart from the label, no matter what they actually did. Just like the good voters in Florida still smart from the way they were used and profiled and made to look and feel like the dumbest folks on the face of the planet ... by the folks who controled the outcome in 2000.

Meanwhile mainstreammedia continues using and abusing, just like a lot of pundots and politicos. [And folks what makes money running those vote machines.]

Yep, that’s contemptible.

Do I begrudge Hillary a win? Not at all. I just wish we could go back to the days when you could actually BELIEVE someone actually won.

Whenever a major win is predicted in the face of the other guy gaining speed, for ever more there will be a cloud of doubt over that win. Something else we can thank Bush and the DISHONEST republican party for.