He fears any and all alternative reasons as to why he'll be getting his ass handed to him... two primaries in a row. That whole 'vast right wing conspiracy' issue sure is a catch 22 for Hillary, the comeback kid. What a little slugger she is! Goodbye Obama signs in the front yard... hello Clinton/Clinton in 2008!!

haa haa ha ha ha!!
OPERATION... CHAOS!!!

I'm willing to bet that if Obama does lose this nomination... we'll still see Obama/Hope/Change stickers on every hybrid, VW and beat up piece of junk on the street for the next 10 years.

"Keep hope alive" Barrack... "keep hope alive!"

It's pretty stupid to blame Fox News; yeah, they are attacking him with more regularity than other news outlets, but you just have to deal with it. I will say that, however, that the Muslim smear is still making its rounds here in Kentucky; in fact, my wife and I have both received it via email (from other Kentuckians) several times in the last week alone, and I've heard it several times on local talk radio. So, yeah, there's some serious "play on ignorance" going on...

I read a rather interesting analysis the other day. The suggestion was not that Obama has a "white problem" or a "blue-collar problem," but rather that he has an "Appalachian problem." The author made a great deal of sense, and a quick look at county-by-county primary results seem to support the notion.
Compare this map of Appalachia to the county-by-county results, and it seems fairly conclusive.

Oh, and I wouldn't put too much credence in this statement, either:

And only anti-Obama blog entries have any effect. HuffPo, KOS, all those leftie nut roots that are everywhere on the net, don't have any power at all.

You assume that some sizable percentage of Kentuckians read this stuff on the net, but I don't think that's really the case. The most recent survey I've seen, taken last year, suggested that only 24% of Kentuckians had broadband Internet access, even though 98% of the state's population lived in areas covered by broadband availability.

My personal experience is that even the politically active folks of my acquaintance don't spend significant time online, and they certainly don't seem to spend time in the world of political blogs.

Wes, you said: "You assume that some sizable percentage of Kentuckians read this stuff on the net, but I don't think that's really the case."

That's no doubt true, but that fact makes Obama look even more paranoid and foolish when he blames blogs for his falling fortunes.

Hat tip to RedState for noticing the significance of this dismissive nonsense from Obama:

"What it says is that I'm not very well known in that part of the country," Obama said. "Sen. Clinton, I think, is much better known, coming from a nearby state of Arkansas. So it's not surprising that she would have an advantage in some of those states in the middle."

"...those states in the middle..." Yeah, the same places most urban elitists dismiss as "flyover country" wilderness, populated by wild beasts and arrested development banjo-pickers.

Good grief.

Oh, and RedState notes that Obama flunks geography, seemingly unaware that Kentucky borders his home state of Illinois, but doesn't touch Arkansas.

Well, you know how those hicks out in "the middle" are; you can't tell one hick state from another.

Good grief again.

#1) How is it "dismissive" to acknowledge the "home turf" of a politician? Isn't that part of the discussion around every potential VP - what states they can "bring with them?" You're reaching on this one.

#2) You'd think that the folks at RedState might actually look at a map before spouting such nonsense.

Let's see...I know, I'll use Mapquest and pick the nearest cities big enough to make the map in each state. (I won't even zoom the map to look for a more advantageous pair of towns.) Gee, Hickman KY and Piggott AR are 72 miles apart by road mileage, which, once you account for border-to-border, puts Kentucky-to-Arkansas within one hour's drive. I'd call that "nearby," wouldn't you?

(Time used: roughly two minutes, and that's only because I didn't have a printed atlas in reach.)

I hardly think that "flunking geography" applies. Sheesh.

Wes, you said: "You assume that some sizable percentage of Kentuckians read this stuff on the net, but I don't think that's really the case."

That's no doubt true, but that fact makes Obama look even more paranoid and foolish when he blames blogs for his falling fortunes.

Where did this come from? The McClatchy article to which you linked didn't mention blogs at all. It did mention e-mail, which is why I confirmed that the "Muslim" smear email is making the rounds in Kentucky, but there wasn't one word about blogs...

Reaching? Wes, you have probably dislocated your shoulder on this one.

Do you not see Obama's dismissive attitude toward "those states in the middle" (read "hick states" there), combined with the sour grapes business? The man is not just an urban elitist; he's grasping for justifications as to why he's not winning.

Mea culpa; I forgot the link to the now-lost blog reference. I'll keep looking for it.

So, Obama's dismissive and Democrats are supposed to flock to either Hillary's "I share your values" or McCain's maverick act?

They're ALL posturing, and it's ALL an act.

Well sure, they're all posturing. Politicians posture. Sickening, but standard operating procedure.

The only flocking I can see as beneficial is flocking away from Obama. Madam Clinton is marginally less obnoxious, and McCain is a notch better than she is; hardly a knight in shining armor, but that's what we're stuck with.

But Obama is as noxious a character as I've ever seen on the national stage. Ultra-painful-left winger, disingenuous to the nth degree, a hollow shell in terms of legislative accomplishments, devoid of managerial experience, and offering little but that phony "change and hope" campaigning crapola. What in the world is there in that man to warrant support?

What in the world is there in that man to warrant support?

His levels of support should tell you just how disenchanted people have become with Washington's business-as-usual. Both McCain and Clinton are power players, by any measure; Obama's relative outside/outlier status works for him in this instance.

In large part, I think it's a willingness to roll the dice with Obama instead of getting the lobbyist-player McCain or the manipulative Clinton.

While we're at it, how is he any less disingenuous than McCain? Mr. Keating Five saying "I've never worked against the public interest"..."Lobbyists are bad" while hiring flocks of them for his campaign (until this week, I guess; someone figured out that he couldn't be a "maverick" while surrounded by lobbyists.)...do we need to make the list? Of course, Clinton's list may be even longer, albeit more of the smoke-filled-room politics than it is the lobbyist calculus...