What if Hillary Clinton had treated Iowa like Barack Obama has Ky. and W. Va.?
Barack Obama ultimately disrespected Kentucky even more than he did West Virginia; he at least made an 11th-hour stop (albeit a brief one) in the latter state the day before its presidential primary last Tuesday.
In the walk-up to Kentucky's nomination contest this Tuesday, the closest he's come to its borders was when he was at home in Chicago on Thursday.**
Since then, he's gone off to South Dakota, Oregon (which also has a primary Tuesday, and where he was greeted by a massive crowd, at left, on Sunday) and Montana (June 3). Tuesday night will find him in Iowa -- not only the site of the caucus win that first fueled his candidacy, but a likely key swing state come November.
Obama's hands-off approach to West Virginia and Kentucky is striking to us on two counts.
One, public protestations notwithstanding, his willingness to concede them to Hillary Clinton in the Democratic race is an unmistakable signal that as he and his aides look toward the general election, neither state figures in its Electoral College calculations. (They are not alone in this assumption -- an astute overlook of the electoral map posted on Salon.com late last week by Democratic pollster Paul Maslin did not include either on the list of 17 states he views as competitive, to varying degrees, in an Obama-John McCain match-up.)
Secondly, it caused us to hark back to the very early stages of the campaign and wonder: What if Clinton had followed the controversial advice of her then-deputy campaign manager, Mike Henry, and taken a pass on a full-fledged effort to win the Jan. 3 caucuses in Iowa?
It was almost exactly a year ago -- May 21 -- that Henry (who left the campaign shortly after Campaign Manager Patti Solis Doyle was replaced early this year) wrote an in-house memo ...
... that urged a "new approach to winning the Democratic nomination" that centered on "skipping the Iowa caucuses and dedicating more of (Clinton's) time and financial resources" to other contests, especially the "20-plus state primaries on Feb. 5."
The memo leaked, of course, creating a dust-up and causing Clinton and all of her other top aides to insist that Iowa was sacrosanct and she would never, ever not fully compete there. (For a trip down memory lane, the full Henry proposal can be read here.)
Hindsight gives the memo a sheen it lacked at the time, when it was widely dismissed as pointless out-of-the-box thinking that would be folly for Clinton to follow. And it is immeasurably easier for Obama to ignore West Virginia and Kentucky with his party's nomination within his grasp then it would have been for Clinton to stiff-arm Iowa before a single vote had been cast.
Still, imagine one possible outcome if she had decided to mail it in there -- a John Edwards victory in the caucuses (as it was, the tally wound up Obama, 38; Edwards, 30%, Clinton 29%).
Who knows the course the race would have taken if Edwards had grabbed first place. But Obama and his followers would have lacked the sense of empowerment and possibility that Iowa provided him.
-- Don Frederick
** [UPDATE: Several readers questioned our phrasing about Obama ignoring Kentucky, noting correctly that Obama did hold a rally in Louisville on May 12, the Monday before the West Virginia vote. We were focused on his travels since that primary, but concede that may have been putting too fine a point on the matter. The Louisville event, by the way, was his first in Kentucky since last summer].
Photo credit: Getty Images



Look, W. Virginia is a "white" state - Kentucky is probably the same. So why should a black man waste his f-----g time and money for bigots who vote "white" only rather than giving this guy a chance?
Don't even talk about disrespect. I find it appalling when people decide their votes on the color on one's skin. I find it appalling when people won't give him the time of day to present his case.
THIS IS WHAT I CALL DISRESEPCT. Amen!
Posted by: Fran | May 19, 2008 at 04:53 PM
Don, you say Sen. Obama didn't go to Kentucky - when in fact he addressed a crowd of 8,000 in Louisville on May 12th - here it is on YouTube:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X7SLaZgco-U
So what are you talking about, please?
Posted by: abt | May 19, 2008 at 04:54 PM
Matty B, I hear Obama visited 57 states not including Hawaii and Alaska because his staff could not justify him visiting those two states. He visited 57 states and need to add one more state. He said it in Beaverton, OR, my mom laughed hysterically, priceless.
Posted by: Kalli | May 19, 2008 at 04:55 PM
Brittanicus,
It's a little rich to have you come in and state your message: "TOGETHER Citizens and Permanent residence can defeat this repugnant bill. Call toll-free (202-224-3121) Fax for free NUMBERSUSA Jam politicians switch boards"
When JuanMcInsane, the crazy old fart that wants to turn over SW USA to Mexico led the rush to play dirty politics last year to hand over our country to illegals and Mexico.
If you are anti-illegal, then vote anybody but Juan Mcinsane.
Posted by: No Juan For Me | May 19, 2008 at 04:56 PM
For appearance and good gesture Obama should have campaigned (letting voters "get to know him better" and his talk of clean coal energy policies) by visiting West Virginia on 5/12 and 5/13, and spent that evening in Oregon for primary results. Obama should have also campaigned on 5/19 and 5/20 in Kentucky, and spend tomorrow evening in Iowa for primary results. His half-baked efforts in WVA and skipping Kentucky all together not good.
Posted by: 08vote | May 19, 2008 at 04:57 PM
Donny,
Why are your words always negative when you think of or make references to Obama? Clinton would have been wise to "skip" Iowa but Obama? For you, he shows "disrespect" for W. Virgina and even more for Kentucky. (Your use of the word disrespect is, of course, not as elegant as mine). Has it occurred to you that simple strategic calculations offer the answer. Seriously, had he ignored (skipped) Pennsylvania he would not have been much worse of. Really, what was the net result of PA when he made all his losses back with NC and Indiana. I would have preferred it if he had put in a bit more time in India and snatched it from Hillary Clinton even if it were by a slim margin. The simple fact is this, Obama has consistently made good calculations and in so doing check-mated Hillary Clinton at every turn and now, John McCain and George Bush are twisting like pretzels. For a rookie senator, that is not bad.
Posted by: John Paul Telhomme | May 19, 2008 at 04:58 PM
I guess those library computers are free...
Posted by: tashekor | May 19, 2008 at 04:58 PM
Yes, indeed, and what if Hillary had taken the high road and declined to shove the campaign into the gutter by playing the race card? What then? Then she might at least be getting sympathy from people beyond her (new) base of the poorly educated and those believing a vote for Obama is a vote against All Women. Who knows? She might even be winning, rather than whining.
Posted by: Paul | May 19, 2008 at 04:58 PM
WVa and KY are both double digit GOP wins in November. Obama has won the nomination, therefore they are utterly irrelevant. Who cares what KY and WVa think of Obama? They are GOING to vote McCain anyway.
The swing states are shaping up to be...
Michigan
Wisconsin
North Carolina
Virginia
Ohio
Florida
Figure on McCain to win Ohio and Florida, Obama to win Michigan and Wisconsin. Then, if Virginia or NC (more likely VA) go Obama, he will become president. Otherwise, it leans McCain. At least, that's the way it looks in May...it is a long way until November.
Posted by: blakestah | May 19, 2008 at 04:58 PM
It is high-larious how African-Americans are revered and respected as a demographic, and everyone heeds their vote.
However, when women likewise vote collectively as a demographic they are maligned and ridiculed.
Typical and ironic that those proclaiming sexism doesn't exist out of one side of their mouth are condemning women for voting their mind out of the other.
Bottom line, it scares men when women have political power. The female demographic is massive (50%) and can achieve wonders when mobilized.
Clinton has mobilized women and women are not going to just line up behind Obama like docile sheep.
We will never vote Obama. He is not a good candidate. Clinton supporter, do not vote Obama. Vote Independent, vote McCain, make your voice heard the same way African-Americans made their voice heard. The difference is African-Americans are respected for doing the same thing.
Posted by: Female demographic, don't vote Obama | May 19, 2008 at 04:59 PM
Your comments at the least are misleading and at the most patently wrong. I saw Obama speak last Monday here in Louisville, Ky to a crowd of over 8,000 people. Michelle Obama has been crisscrossing the state in support of her husband all day today. Please get your facts straight before espousing your political propaganda.
Posted by: keith McGuffey | May 19, 2008 at 04:59 PM
I blame the media. We should just let them vote who needs anyone else, Besides it's clear they are much more comfortable being called sexist rather than racist.
Posted by: Mimi | May 19, 2008 at 05:00 PM
What if? What if? Just give up Hillary supporters. America has made its decision.
Posted by: Homer Simpson | May 19, 2008 at 05:01 PM
I blame the media. We should just let them vote who needs anyone else, Besides it's clear they are much more comfortable being called sexist rather than racist.
Posted by: Mimi | May 19, 2008 at 05:01 PM
What if we all lived on mars? Idiots!
Posted by: Chris Caso | May 19, 2008 at 05:03 PM
So, what do you have to say to this point?
"Barack Obama spoke to a crowd of 8,000 at a rally in Louisville, Kentucky on May 12, 2008."
Shouldn't you get your facts straight before you publish?
Posted by: Want to know... | May 19, 2008 at 05:04 PM
Kentucky is voting by RACE, not by who the best candidate for the Democratic Party is.
Have you ever been to KY?
BTW: To the poster who calls himself "the media decided this election", Senator Obama has not lost ANYTHING.
If you think Barack will lose up to the old man, you obviously have NOT been paying attention.
You are citing Frank Luntz as if he means jackchit. The dude works for Faux!! He's the very same guy that worked extremely hard for the last three Repuggers who lost their supposedly safe seats in Congress. Turn off the FAUX and watch Olbermann Dude.
Posted by: Lisa Michelle Sanders | May 19, 2008 at 05:04 PM
It was Hillary's strategy to ignore all states except "The Big Ones" that disrespected, the Democratic Party and all the other 'small' states. She played the game and blew it. Sorry Hillary. No changing the rules in the middle of the game. You will not be forgiven.
Posted by: thebob.bob | May 19, 2008 at 05:05 PM
Whoever started this blog is dishonest,disingenious,crafty,a nincompoop,......please stop posting on it.
Posted by: dave | May 19, 2008 at 05:37 PM
Screw you. Hillary is so dead. Get over it.
Posted by: xxxx | May 19, 2008 at 05:38 PM
What's that about Obama disrespecting Kentucky?
Obama has a campaign to manage and he's putting his money where he needs to.
Yeah! Clinton went to FLA and MI and ended up running out of money!
Give me a nominee that can run a campaign, pay his debts, organize from grass roots (I volunteered and saw it with my own eyes), and have money left.
This is not about gender or color people! Our country is broke and I want somebody that can demonstrate that he can do it right at LEAST at a campaign level. To me that's a test on its own.
YES HE CAN!
Posted by: Pat Wilson | May 19, 2008 at 05:38 PM
Remember how negative the campaign got in Penn, Ohio and Indiana? Why should Obama go to KY and risk dividing the party further by putting her on the defensive. Besides, Hillary has the racist vote of Penn, WV and KY, be happy with your outcome.
Posted by: ready 4 change` | May 19, 2008 at 05:40 PM
Elitists and snobs who are eager to visit Pyong Yang or
Teheran but will not even pay one visit to Kentucky need
not become president of the USA. Can anyone name two
countrys were sexism is more prevalent than North Korea
or Iran ? Dont be misled by the endorsments of gov Judas
or Hanoi Jane...Obama is definitely a crypto-sexist.
Posted by: Honeymoon in Teheran | May 19, 2008 at 05:41 PM
WRONG. He visited Kentucky and I googled at least one major rally in Louisville, with 8000 people in attendance -- so why on earth are you publishing hitjobs on the guy? Here, let us help you do your job, fair and impartial and informed journalist:
http://www.kentucky.com/223/story/403179.html
Posted on Tue, May. 13, 2008
Obama returns
CANDIDATE RALLIES 8,000 IN LOUISVILLE
By Ryan Alessi
RALESSI@HERALD-LEADER.COM
The week before Kentucky's Democratic presidential primary, U.S. Sen. Barack Obama gave a general election speech Monday that bit at likely GOP nominee John McCain while also laying out policy goals and
Posted by: Julie in Burbank | May 19, 2008 at 05:43 PM
To all Women:
Hillary will come back better and stronger.
The "women card" sounds terrible to my females ears.
Don't cut your noses in spite of your faces!
VOTE SMART! VOTE AGAINST THE REPUBLICANS!
Posted by: Pat Wilson | May 19, 2008 at 05:44 PM