West Virginia?

Man wishing to be buried
alongside his mother, finds his
gravesite already occupied.

The big and happy news of the day is, of course, John Edwards endorsing Obama, and giving a rousing speech to that effect. This will keep the pundits and the MSM busy for several days. Will he be the VP nominee? Will he get a cabinet position? Will it be the Supreme Court? Where was his wife? Is she still endorsing Clinton? Was this deliberately planned to such the wind out of Hillary’s West Virginia triumph? When did Edwards decide? What could he bring to the ticket? Blah, blah, blah. Don’t misunderstand, I think it’s great, but there is no doubt we’ll be hearing about it for some time and the less anyone actually knows about it, the more they’ll talk about it. Probably of greater importance is the fact that the Democrats won another Congressional seat in Mississippi in the heart of a Republican district.

As for me, I’m still puzzling over West Virginia. It was predicted that Clinton would win in a landslide there, and she did. But what does it actually mean? And what does it suggest for the future? It is easy to just dismiss her victory there as the inevitable outcome of a virtually all-white state, populated mostly by working-class white men and older white women. Apparently, fully 20% of voters interviewed admitted that race was important to them in their decision. You know if that many admitted it there had to be many more that felt that way but wouldn’t admit it. But what does it mean to those who are claiming that Hillary as VP could deliver the white working-class vote? Will these voters give up their racism just because Hillary is on the ticket? I doubt it. Also, I strongly suspect that these voters who are racist are most likely to be also sexist. Does this mean that race takes priority over sexism when it comes to voting? Do they just prefer a white woman to a black man, no matter what? This might mean that if Hillary is on the ticket they will not only lose the black vote but also the sexist vote (if they are not more or less one and the same). What could Hillary offer Obama other than claiming she can deliver “the stupid vote?” The same thing would be true of anyone running with Obama. Thus I believe we should just write West Virginia off as totally unrepresentative of the rest of the United States and not even worry about it in the context of the national election (which it looks like Obama is prepared to do). Perhaps there is some solace in the fact that at least many citizens of West Virginia seem to be honest.

Could either Clinton or Edwards actually deliver the hard-working white vote (minus the racists and sexists)? Could they help dispel the mistaken image they have created of Obama as an elitist? Clinton with her 20 million dollar earnings last year and her elitist background, Edwards with his fortune and $400 haircuts? Obama is more of a populist than either of them but somehow he has been labeled as an elitist (I guess because he went to the University on scholarships?). It should be obvious by now that facts have nothing to do with the elections, and certainly don’t affect the MSM. Even now they still want us to believe Hillary has a chance. Why? It sells news, or at least what we are being told is news. Actually, it all just balderdash.

I suppose you heard that Bush’s big sacrifice for the “war” effort was giving up golf. Poor guy, he must really be suffering. In case you are unaware of it, George W. Bush gives buffoons a bad name.

Someone I know, whose opinions I respect, and who knows more than I do about politics and the Democratic Party, suggested to me that the party is much more divided than they let on. Much to my surprise, and even amazement, he thinks McCain could end up winning the Presidency because of this split. I don’t know if this is true but it does occur to me that Hillary Clinton, even though she cannot win the nomination, has the potential power to insure that Democrats, and Obama, lose. She could do this presumably by instructing her followers to either not vote, or to vote for McCain. This would then allow her to run in 2012. It is claimed that all the talk of unity, especially by Clinton, is just a front and that, in fact, the whole show could be torpedoed. I find this frightening and I sincerely hope it is not so. But we should know before long whether Hillary is sincere in wanting to unite the party and back Obama. Why does it seem there is always a dark threatening cloud on the horizon?

LKBIQ:
“Facts are stupid things.”
Ronald Reagan