Workout notes: 3 miles with the group. Wicked caffeine headache.

Ranting: watch Pat Buchanan go!

You see: Obama has an advantage because he is black. Dang…I knew there was a reason we had so many black presidents in the past! (trivia: in a film released within the last 10-15 years, a black guy did play the POTUS. Which film and which actor?

West Virginia analysis: an interesting take on the outcome; Nicholas Stephanopoulos argues that, in terms of percentage of the white vote, Obama did about as well as he did in Alabama and Mississippi. What made this somewhat different is that in other predominately white states, Obama did ok, especially if there was a very low black population.

Endorsements: John Edwards!

Even more of a firestorm: NARAL endorses Obama.

Yes, it is a good endorsement, but oh did it drive up a firestorm!

notksanymore (the diary author) goes on to remind us that some of the firestorm may well be due to being mislead:

To see what some “feminist” organizations are saying:

Statement by Marcia Pappas, President of NOW - New York State

The National Organization for Women - NYS and its many statewide chapters have received numerous calls and emails from women and men promising that in the November election they will not cast their votes for anyone but Senator Hillary Clinton. This surge of communications comes at a time when the roll of superdelegates is being debated in the press and media.

In voting at the Democratic Convention, superdelegates should recall that the post-9/11 fight for New York State funds was an unprecedented task. In those extraordinary circumstances Hillary Clinton truly went to bat for New Yorkers. That date marked the most devastating attack on US soil in our history. But Clinton’s experience, knowledge, and resourcefulness shone through in her crucial decisions for those awful times. And as far as military preparedness is concerned, Clinton’s huge bank of supporters happens to include an impressive number of notable generals who believe she is the very best candidate to deal with any war-time crisis.

In light of these undisputed facts, the Democratic superdelegates should certainly be very mindful of the aforementioned calls and emails coming in to NOW-NYS, all from voters declaring that if Obama wins the Democratic nod, they will either vote for McCain or write in Hillary’s name. These usually loyal democrats have made it clear that they will not vote for Obama. They are infuriated that a woman with exemplary qualifications could be supplanted by a man with limited experience and scant qualifications.

Sexism in the media and statements by political pundits, some even from Democratic leaders, has contributed greatly to the attempts to diminish Clinton. The same phenomenon is building up her opponent who is largely unknown and untried. Furthermore, this meteoric elevation of an unexamined candidate has sparked resentment and anger from a huge portion of the New York constituency. It has been further suggested by callers that if Obama’s supporters are so anxious for Party unity, they should convince him to drop out because Hillary Clinton has won all the big states a candidate needs to take the Presidency.

Women make up two thirds of the Democratic Party. Throughout history they have supported mediocre male candidates. It is very much high time for the Party and its superdelegates to support a superior woman.

It sort of reminds me of this cartoon

What is going on? Well, there is a ton of anger, and to be honest, some of Senator Clinton’s most loyal supporters probably honestly thought that she was going to win. From Opmama at the Daily Kos:

I’m not sure that’s what is happening here. But exit polls last night said that 60+% of West Virginians think Hillary will be the nominee. And the biggest voice convincing them of that was hers (aided and abetted by some media, for sure).

Now there is money flowing in to her campaign on the heels of her victory last night. I hope it’s from financially comfortable donors who know the true score - that her chances of winning are awfully small. But I worry that it might be coming from her “hard working white base” - who think they’re supporting a solidly viable candidate who just needs a few dollars to pull out a win.

Elizabeth Edwards seems to back Hillary Clinton.

Edwards, the former North Carolina senator, has been courted by both sides since he dropped out of the nomination fight in late January. Most analysts believe he favors Obama, but one reason he might be staying publicly neutral is that his wife, Elizabeth Edwards, has tilted toward Clinton, publicly praising Clinton’s healthcare plan over Obama’s.

But it appears that John Edwards will endorse Barack Obama.

Trivia: if you are a political junkie, you should be able to answer this: what job did John Edward’s dad do?

(larger)
(David Horsey)

(larger)
(Pat Oliphant)

Workout notes I’ll do 3 more miles with my group this evening. This morning I went to the East Peoria trail and walked 8 miles; I sort of took it easy going out (54:47) and then sped up on the downhill section (50:34). My time 1:45:21, though this wasn’t so much “hard” as “deliberate”. Though the paved path was slippery in spots, it was all but perfect walking weather. Still, my nose ran and I coughed a bit; I am not at 100 percent.

I wore bluejean shorts and a long sleeved. I am feeling pretty good now that I broke down and bought some good decongestant.

I am not at 100 percent; not even close. We’ll see this weekend; I do know that I have to take it out very humbly at FANS. I was thinking of skipping it altogether but today encouraged me.

Education: I was reminded of the pitfalls of posting grades early; the D students are starting to whine. Unfortunately, many of them have yet to make the connection between knowing the material and getting a better grade. To them, it is all meaningless symbols to be manipulated by some rules which are more or less arbitrary and set by the whims of the professors and text books. They honestly don’t understand the “why” of anything in a calculus class. And unfortunately, they don’t know that a grade implies a level of mastery; they just see a grade as something to be obtained by a requisite amount of suffering and/or effort.

Now if you think that I am one of those “elitist” mathematics professors that hammered the students for not being able to do proofs: not at all. The C, D, and F students barfed on the simple: “here is a function, find its derivative” or on problems such as being able to do simple integrals.

Elections: again
Note: these two cartoons (at the top of the page) appeared in our local paper over the past couple of days)

I wrote a Daily Kos diary about Hillary Clinton’s reasons for staying in the race; I argue that she is not aiming for 2012. I attach a poll; one poll option is to make fun of me.

Thomas Edsall makes a similar argument at the Huffington Post.

Robert Creamer shows that, even with this loss, Obama has moved closer to the nomination. If that seems strange, think of it this way: suppose a football team is up 21-7 with 8 minutes left in the game, and the team that is behind makes a 6 minute drive and ends up kicking a field goal. Yes, the team that is behind has closed the score slightly, but given that more time has elapsed, their chances of winning have actually gone down.

RJ Eskow writes a blistering column; he notes that 7% of the Democratic voters in West Virginia voted for someone who isn’t even running anymore.

Hillary’s remaining advocates have said that she was only ‘telling it like it is,’ albeit with what they’d call a little awkward phrasing, when she told the AP last week that “hard working Americans, white Americans” will never vote for Obama. Okay. As long as we’re telling it like is, let’s go for it: Phrasing aside, when it comes to a avidly racist percentage of white working Americans she’s right. But the problem is, a lot of those voters probably won’t vote for a woman either. In fact, it could be the only way they’ll vote for a woman is if her opponent’s black (and she’s not).

They’re so reluctant, in fact, that 7% of the voters in West Virginia voted for John Edwards, who isn’t even in the race. That fact is nothing short of stunning. Faced with a black man and a white woman, these voters chose a white man who isn’t running. And these are Democrats. Among Southern whites, this makes them the Left.

No Democrat since 1916 has won the White House without West Virginia? Make that argument all you want. The fact is, Democrats kissed off West Virginia when they repudiated Edwards (and it’s questionable whether he could’ve won it either).

Run a woman against a white male war hero, in places like West Virginia? It’s not impossible (neither is a black man), but it’s a definite long shot.

And, down South, Hillary’s not just any woman. She’s the woman who dissed Tammy Wynette. Have you heard Tammy sing? Southerners have — and when that woman’s voice breaks it’s enough to bring a tear to your eye. If they’re still holding a grudge over the Civil War, do you think they’ll forget that Hillary seemed to mock them — and Tammy — in 1992?

(Okay, maybe I’m exaggerating the importance of the Tammy Wynette factor. But do you really think Hillary can carry West Virginia against a white male war hero?) [...]

Ouch! I should point out that the last poll does have Hillary Clinton beating McCain 47-42 in West Virginia. So, yes, I concede that she is stronger in the Appalachian areas than Obama is.

Families: I’ve pointed out that this election has divided families; I’ve talked about mine and now this election has strained romances as well!

More on West Virginia: there is some lingering bitterness

There are more signs of a split within the Democratic Party. Just 23 percent of Hillary Clinton voters in West Virginia said they would be satisfied if Barack Obama was the Democratic nominee while 75 percent said they would be dissatisfied – the highest number recorded in exit polls yet. In Indiana, 62 percent of Clinton voters said they would be dissatisfied with Obama as the nominee. Sixty one percent of Obama voters said they would be dissatisfied with Clinton as the nominee while 33 percent said they would be satisfied.

Looking ahead to the general election, 59 percent of Clinton voters say they would either vote for Republican John McCain or not vote at all if Obama is the Democratic nominee. Thirty six percent of Clinton voters said they would vote for Obama while 35 percent said they would vote for McCain and 24 percent said they would sit the election out. Fifty one percent of Obama’s voters said they would support Clinton in the general election while 31 percent said they would support McCain and 14 percent would not vote.

I hope this “I’ll take my marbles and go home” sentiment is just primary snideness. If you like either Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama, believe me, either one is much, much more to your liking than John “more of the same” McCain. Really. If Obama weren’t in this race, I’d have no problems backing HRC in the general.

Some West Virginia Kossacks weigh in. Hollowdweller is hopeful:

I agree there’s more than a few ignorant peckerwoods that would never vote for a black person.

HOWEVER as Mountaineer Maniac points out he didn’t really try.

You really can’t underestimate how much news goes person to person here. And how much showing that you care enough to show up counts.

I think it was Howard Dean said something like that one way Dems could win was to show up and shake a few hands and show people you wanted their vote. Obama didn’t really do that here. He made a few big speeches, visited a few eating places and that was it.

Bill Clinton showed special attention to WV both before AND after he was elected and Hillary out campaigned Obama here. I voted Obama, but I’m a political junkie who gets my news from everywhere not the barber shop, grocery store, or beauty parlor. Obama didn’t do enough up close and personal campaigning.

I have heard people say things about black people here that were totally ignorant. But then I’d say “well what about so and so” (a black person they actually knew) and would get the response “well he’s different”

If Obama would have pursued a more up close campaign style he could have made inroads but the question is given the number of delegates WV has was it worth the effort? I contend he thought NO.

However he may want to come back here and try to win the state over as a sign of his ability to bring people togther and the closeness of most elections in recent years.

But Mountaineer Maniac is tired of seeing his state run down.

I’m sick and tired of Obama supporters putting down the state of West Virginia and it’s people by calling the entire state racist. Sure West Virginia has racists, but so does a lot of other states.

Fact of the matter is Obama had a genuine moment to come into West Virginia like JFK did in 1960 and get to know some truly great people and change some minds, but instead he chose to ignore West Virginia and got his ass handed to him as a result.

* Mountaineer Maniac’s diary :: ::
*

Disclaimer I actually voted for Sen. Obama via my absentee ballot, but last night I wish I had my vote back because he deserved the ass kicking he got in West Virginia.

I’m sick and tired of Obama supporters putting down West Virginia and saying Obama lost West Virginia because the state is full of racists.

If West Virginia is so racist, why is my Congressman an Arab-American? Can you tell me that? He’s one of only two in the U.S. Congress if I’m not mistaken.

Here’s why Obama lost West Virginia.

1. His lazy ass wouldn’t campaign here. He thought he could spend some money on tv and radio ads and influence the voters. Well he was WRONG! West Virginians want to get the know the candidates like voters in Iowa and New Hampshire. They don’t make up their minds on candidates because some coal miner in Illinois says good things about a particular candidate.

2. West Virginia loves Bill and Hillary Clinton. They actually came to West Virginia and went through every small town and hollow asking for votes. Had Obama done the same he might not have got his ass handed to him last night. Don’t forget that President Clinton won West Virginia in 1992 and 1996.

3. Obama has a problem with some working class white voters; voters that he is going to need if he ever wants to become president. Contrary to popular belief, there’s not enough votes in every Starbucks in the country for Obama to win President. If the only thing people know about him is he 1) has a funny name, 2) had a radical preacher, and 3) doesn’t wear an American flag lapel pin, of course people are not going to vote for him. The most astonishing thing I saw in the exit polls last night was roughly 50% of WV voters thought he had the same views as Rev. Wright. I’m sorry, but that’s not as much racism and only knowing about Obama what they hear on tv. He should have came here and told people his life story, his values, and what makes him who is as a person.

4. Obama didn’t even win the young people in West Virginia. He couldn’t even hold the demographics he has been winning in other states.

On a lighter note, I think Sen. Obama will make a great President, but Obama supporters need to quit this bullshit about not needing places like West Virginia. The last thing you should be doing is throwing racist sour grapes at the people of West Virginia. Doesn’t help your candidate (it actually hurts him) and it makes it that much harder on me trying to convince people to support him here in West Virginia in the fall.

Other politics: remember the ignorant idiot who called Obama supporters a collection of “African Americans and eggheads”?

This is the same clown that said that Howard Dean’s “50 state strategy” wouldn’t work.

Remember this, from 5/11/2006?

BLITZER: Very quickly, is Howard Dean in trouble?

BEGALA: No. I think Candy’s report was spot on.

He — yes, he’s in trouble, in that campaign managers, candidates, are really angry with him. He has raised $74 million and spent $64 million. He says it’s a long-term strategy. But what he has spent it on, apparently, is just hiring a bunch of staff people to wander around Utah and Mississippi and pick their nose. That’s not how you build a party. You win elections. That’s how you build a party.

Funny, guess what happened in Mississippi yesterday?

No one could’ve ever predicted that investing in a state’s infrastructure would make it easier to win elections in the future.

p.s. Begala apologized for these comments, but the larger point remains. Begala was reflecting the CW in establishment DC, which has always been against spending money in supposedly “hopeless” states like Mississippi.

Update: Ahh, I’d forgotten that Tim Tagaris, then at the DNC, quickly put up videos of two of those Mississippi nosepickers after Begalas comments.

.

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.

Hillary Clinton is way ahead 64-29 percent with 45% of the vote in. Congratulations to Clinton supporters; I know that many of you walked many miles, knocked on lots of doors and made a ton of phone calls for your candidate. Enjoy your win.

Now back to Ollie as usual….

Pssst: as a comparison:

Idaho 4 Electoral Votes
Obama 79%
Clinton 17%
Obama +62%

Hawaii 4 Electoral Votes
Obama 76%
Clinton 24%
Obama +52%

Alaska 3 Electoral Votes
Obama 75%
Clinton 25%
Obama +50%

Washington 11 Electoral Votes
Obama 68%
Clinton 31%
Obama +37%

Georgia 15 Electoral Votes (Competitive with Bob Barr)
Obama 67%
Clinton 31%
Obama +36%

Colorado 9 Electoral Votes
Obama 67%
Clinton 32%
Obama +35%

Minnesota 10 Electoral Votes
Obama 66%
Clinton 32%
Obama +34%

And as Poblano pointed out this morning, No Democrat has won the White House while losing Washington, D.C….

Barack Obama won Washington D.C. by 52%…

52%…

52%…

So Obama has seen the light and will concede. Really.

(APPLAUSE) Thank you. We began this campaign sixteen months ago on a cold day in Springfield, Illinois. Now, more than thirty million votes later, we’ve built a grassroots political organization, fueled by volunteers and donations from millions of Americans. After forty-eight contests, we’ve won 32 primaries and caucuses to Senator Clinton’s 17. We’ve earned over sixteen million votes — more than anyone else — and we’ve won over 1,600 pledged delegates to Clinton’s 1,444.

If we continued this campaign, we’d be on pace to secure a majority of delegates by May 20. Recently, we overtook Senator Clinton’s lead among the superdelegates, the insiders who can — if they choose — overturn the will of the people. After tonight, we’d need just 145 more delegates to claim victory, less than half the number needed by Clinton.

* JedReport’s diary :: ::
*

But tonight, the people of West Virginia have spoken, and I must accept their verdict, which is that Hillary Clinton should be the next presidential nominee of the Democratic party.

I understand the historical legacy that has led to tonight’s results, but I have no hard feelings. Change is not easy — I’ve always understood that.

And despite efforts by other campaigns and some in the media to goad me into labeling the people of West Virginia as this or that, I understand that doing so would be divisive, counter-productive, and bad for our country. In short, it would be unpresidential.

But none of that matters now. What’s important is that another 0.7% of the delegates to the Democratic National Convention have been selected, and most of them will be supporting Hillary Clinton.

Clinton, in turn, has argued that those delegates are worth more than others. There is no easy response to such a compelling argument.

Consequently, I am announcing that effective immediately, I am suspending my presidential campaign.

It’s painful decision, but it’s the right one, dictated by my sense of honor and duty and devotion to the democratic principles upon which this nation is founded.[...]

Oh wait, that was snark. Beware of what JedReport says.

Nevertheless, I am thinking of switching to John McCain. Why? Well, Bush has done such a good job and:

Uhhh, maybe not.

Note: a congressional seat in Mississippi has changed from red to blue, though the R’s ran against Obama.

Results for the Mississippi First District special election, filling the seat of Senator Roger Wicker.

93% of Precincts Reporting

Travis W. Childers (D): 53% (54029)
Greg Davis (R): 47% (47361)

Update: The AP has called the race for Travis Childers. Mississippi now has three Democratic Representatives…out of four.

Update #2: Congratulations to Rep.-elect Travis Childers, his staff and volunteers, the voters of Mississippi’s First District, the DCCC…and the good people at Swing State Project, Cotton Mouth Blog, The Thorn Papers, Will Bardwell, and anyone I’m forgetting

Update #3: The NRCC spent over $1.3 million in this race, and that’s not counting what shadow groups like Freedom’s Watch put in. It’s an R+10 district. They ran some ads which were nasty as hell. And their candidate, if not outstanding, was not especially controversial.

We beat them anyway, on their turf.

Update #4: Turnout was astronomical. Especially for a runoff. It’s likely that it will exceed 100,000 votes, which is insane; turnout was around 64,000 in the first election.

Workout notes 5 more miles; I avoided the rain, but some of the route lacked sidewalks.

I am so close to the official end of the semester that I can just taste it. I have an across town appointment at 5:30 and ordinarily I’d walk there, but there are thunderstorms coming. So, I’ll bite the bullet and drive.

Politics
The Daily Kos is going back and forth about Obama’s impending loss in West Virginia; there are some of us who say “what do you expect from those people” and others who say “hey, quit making stereotypes”.

One thing I did learn from this: you know the old stereotype about the people of Appalachia being inbreds? At one time (maybe 140 years ago) there was some truth to that. Not anymore.

Is inbreeding unusually common in Appalachia? Here’s where things get murky. Although the public and many social scientists have long assumed that isolated hill folk often marry their cousins, and some certainly do (ask the Fugates), research on the subject is pretty thin. The most comprehensive look I’ve found is a 1980 paper (”Night Comes to the Chromosomes [etc],” Central Issues in Anthropology) by Robert Tincher, who at the time was a grad student at the University of Kentucky. Having dug through 140 years’ worth of marriage records in a remote four-county region of eastern Kentucky, Tincher argues that (a) yeah, cousin marriage happens in the hill country, but (b) rates vary widely from place to place and even among families in a given district, and (c) it isn’t conspicuously more prevalent than in a lot of other places. Point (c) isn’t all that persuasive; Tincher’s numbers show that as late as 1950 inbreeding was well above what could be accounted for by chance–married couples on average were approximately third cousins. However, the rate had dropped sharply since the peak after the Civil War, when the average couple were somewhere between second cousins and second cousins once removed. What’s more, the rate fell quickly after 1950–no doubt due to postwar prosperity, urbanization, and so on–and by 1970 was no higher than you’d likely find in the general population.

So, about normal for the last 30-60 years! Damn these people who go out and check the facts. It is getting so that you can put anyone down anymore!

It is true that Senator Clinton does very well in Appalachia, even in the Appalachian parts of the states that Senator Obama won (e. g., Virginia, North Carolina). Here is a map of the counties where Senator Clinton got 65% of the vote or more (I’d discount Michigan as Obama or Edwards weren’t on the ballot)

(larger)

Though this is off topic, here is a similar map for Senator Obama

(larger)

Note: it is easy to make out Chicago, and yes, Peoria county is in green as well.
Notice that Madison and Minneapolis are lit up too, as is Kansas and much of Nebraska.

As far as the old “why is Obama so weak in Appalachia”, maybe we should give Clinton credit for being strong there? Hey, she wants to win too and has campaigned hard.

Now, for some silly videos:

5 Reasons you should vote McCain.

A couple of Clinton West Virgina videos (very positive)

Off to walk; I’ll chance it after all. But I am bringing my raincoat.

First some comic relief:

From ABC news:

In an interview with The Atlantic’s Jeffrey Goldberg, Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill., talked a great deal about Israel. He was rather effusive in his support for the Jewish state.

Apparently given nothing of substance to criticize, House Republican leaders then took a statement Obama made and twisted it to act as if the Democrat had insulted the Jewish state. Which he had not.

After describing some of the first times he thought about Zionism, Obama said “the idea of a secure Jewish state is a fundamentally just idea, and a necessary idea, given not only world history but the active existence of anti-Semitism, the potential vulnerability that the Jewish people could still experience.” [...]

When the topic turned to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, Obama said, “Israel and the Palestinians have tough issues to work out to get to the goal of two states living side by side in peace and security.” When asked if Israel besmirches the United States’ reputation, Obama said “No, no, no.”

Then he said: “But what I think is that this constant wound, that this constant sore, does infect all of our foreign policy. The lack of a resolution to this problem provides an excuse for anti-American militant jihadists to engage in inexcusable actions, and so we have a national-security interest in solving this, and I also believe that Israel has a security interest in solving this because I believe that the status quo is unsustainable. I am absolutely convinced of that … I want to solve the problem…”

It seemed pretty clear to me that by “constant sore” Obama was referring to the unresolved Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

But a Republican house member tried to say that Obama called Israel an “open sore”.

A press release from House Republican leader John Boehner asserts that Barack Obama told me that Israel is a “constant sore” that infects American foreign policy. “Israel is a critical American ally and a beacon of democracy in the Middle East, not a `constant sore’ as Barack Obama claims,” Boehner’s statement reads.

Mr. Boehner, I’m sure, is a terribly busy man, with many burdensome responsibilities, so I have to assume that he simply didn’t have time to read the entire Obama interview, or even the entire paragraph, or even a single clause. If he had, of course, he would have seen that Obama was clearly calling the Middle East conflict, and not Israel, a sore. Why, there’s no one who would disagree that the Middle East conflict is a “sore,” is there?

I have no doubt that Mr. Boehner will issue a correction to his press release in which he states the obvious, which is that Obama expressed — in twelve different ways — his support for Israel to me.

If he doesn’t, however, I would, sadly, have to agree with my colleague, the less-forgiving Andrew Sullivan, who called Boehner’s statement a “flat-out lie.” In fact, I would add to Andrew’s post, by calling Boehner’s statement mendacious, duplicitous, gross, and comically refutable. So Mr. Boehner, do the right thing, and correct the record. I’ll be happy to post the correction right here.

Yes, the above came from the person who interviewed Obama.

As Obama said months ago, it is the “same old game”; they “just make stuff up”.

The old Okie-Doke. The attempt to “bamboozle”.

Note: as of 1011 am, central time (13 May) I did not see a copy of this press release on Boehner’s website.

(image from here)

Workout notes 4 mile walk (same as Saturday and yesterday); pace was much better and I didn’t cough nearly as much as yesterday, and not at all while going up the West Peoria Cemetery hill. The cold seems to be running its course; I still feel a tad weak.

Personality and belief in the supernatural: Friendly Atheist makes the argument that one’s personality more or less determines how willing one is to accept supernatural beliefs. His short take on the article is worth a read.

(my mom, helping out with Spanish speaking HRC supporters)

Hillary Clinton and her supporters We’ll have to give her some credit today for what is sure to be a landslide win for her. My sister is a big supporter of her and provided me with the following report on what HRC supporters are doing in Central Texas:

Hey there!

Tonight, Monday May 12th, there will be a BBQ phone bank party at
[deleted], which is the Hillary Clinton phone bank center in
Austin. The phone bank party will start at 5pm and will go until 11pm,
so get there whenever you like as the phone bank center opens at
11am…it will be good time!!! If you can not be at the party we can
really use some volunteers to call Oregon anytime from 11am until
11pm every day until May 20th. We have Hillary buttons for callers
when they arrive as well along with beverages and food, so please
help out any day as well as we need people who can volunteer a few
hours of their time to help call Oregon to bring Hillary a victory
which would mean 3 states in a row which would mean Hillary is the
most electable!

xxxx yyyyy zzzz

For best directions, go to http://txhill.com and check out the maps
and extra info to get to the Austin Phone Bank Center. We would
really like some help when we open at 11am so please call James Dean
at www-yyy-xxxx if you can schedule some time.

Tuesday, West Virginia will be holding their primary and we will also
have a live CNN watch party as well from 5pm until 11pm on Tuesday
with food and beverages. Hillary is poised to beat Obama by 30 to 40
points or more, and this will be a perfect opportunity to let voters
in Oregon know that Hillary is still a viable candidate, or why else
would she win by so much in West Virginia and Kentucky?

All we need to do is get as many Hillary supporters to get out their
vote in Oregon to help Hillary, who has proved to us that she is a
fighter, and will will show Hillary that we are also fighters!

I deleted the phone number and the address as I don’t want whack jobs harassing those folks. People who honestly want to help can go to the Hillary Clinton website and find Texas.

Though I’ve been very critical of their campaign tactics I respect the grit and determination of the rank and file supporters. The vast majority of them are cool people. My ire has been directed at the professionals in the campaign staff.

And yes, though I’d love it if BHO pulled off the miracle of all election miracles and won West Virginia, I’ll be happy for the rank and file HRC supporters if she wins big (as expected).

Obama campaign
Yes, overt racism still lives. Obama supporters (including the White ones) have felt it’s bite. No, I am not talking about racism of the “hey, Jesse Jackson won South Carolina” remark type, I mean the ugly “n-word” type.

Here’s the worst: In Muncie, a factory town in the east-central part of Indiana, Ross and her cohorts were soliciting support for Obama at malls, on street corners and in a Wal-Mart parking lot, and they ran into “a horrible response,” as Ross put it, a level of anti-black sentiment that none of them had anticipated.

“The first person I encountered was like, ‘I’ll never vote for a black person,’ ” recalled Ross, who is white and just turned 20. “People just weren’t receptive.”

For all the hope and excitement Obama’s candidacy is generating, some of his field workers, phone-bank volunteers and campaign surrogates are encountering a raw racism and hostility that have gone largely unnoticed — and unreported — this election season. Doors have been slammed in their faces. They’ve been called racially derogatory names (including the white volunteers). And they’ve endured malicious rants and ugly stereotyping from people who can’t fathom that the senator from Illinois could become the first African American president.

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.

In Geogia, a bar is selling these t-shirts:

Story.

The racist bastard selling these t-shirts is Mike Norman, owner of Mulligan’s Bar and Grill in Cobb, Georgia.

My experience: I’ve yet to encounter this. Yes, I’ve ended up getting hung up on, but that was due to people not wanting to be bothered (a sentiment that I can well understand). Yes, people have told me that they don’t like him, but not once has race ever come up.

I’ve worked: door to door in Illinois, and called: Texas, Wyoming, Wisconsin, Mississippi and Illinois.

Once, at a calling party, someone told one of my fellow callers that Obama doesn’t have a chance as “American will never vote for a Black man” but the guy saying it was an elderly African American man!

Unity Ticket? Guy T. Saperstein throws cold water on that.

There has been much discussion on the Daily Kos about the upcoming slaughter, er, Democratic primary in West Virginia (Note: the Daily Kos is Democratic website that has become very Obama friendly since Edwards dropped out)

One of the font page bloggers, DHinMI, (who is indeed smart, but not as smart as he thinks he is) wrote a simply outstanding analysis of Obama’s approval among White voters and among those voters in Appalachia. The bottom line: Obama does ok among White voters in general, but gets creamed in the Appalachian regions.

Go there to read the article; it is excellent.

True, one could say that maybe Clinton is very popular there (in Appalachia). But many of these folks would be hostile to BHO even in a race against McCain.

We’ve also had some “ok, let’s not be bitter about the results” and let’s not insult the West Virginia voters posts that made the recommended lists.

So, we’ll learn what it is like to get blown out tomorrow.

Blow outs are all but impossible predict, so I’ll go with 65-35 though it might end up worse than that. Go to Election Inspection for the ugly, ugly numbers.

More from the Mountain State:

Voters mull things over:

Clinton will win big, but won’t pitch a shutout.

Obama has gone to West Virginia and slammed McCain over the GI bill.

Here is the video

Move On.org had a contest for amateur Obama ads. Here is the winner

The other winners and finalists are here.

The following is my favorite:

And, of course in honor of the upcoming West Virginia Primary

(yes, I know Deliverance was set in the Appalachian Hills in Georgia)

Think: Clinton the banjo, Obama the guitar. The song will be played this fall?