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  

Comments

[bill]

Obama has not won this thing yet - BUT he acts like he has and I dont like what I see. Ignors states, tells people not to pick on his wife. runs his mouth but says nothing. The dude is joke and all of the Obamafanatics need to get a clue. You read their comments and all you can see it hate and rage - not too much Hope and Change. It is all a joke, McCain is going to win this thing in a walk because Obama can't pull it off. He cant get 1/2 the demoicratic vote how does he think he is going to get the majority in the general election?

[hunter thompson]

Obama has a sense of entitlement.
From early on he has shown that he carries grudges. There was the photo of Clinton walking up to Kennedy and Obama, and Obama turning the other direction.
There is the "finger flip" that his followers claim was only scratching his face, even though the audience laughed warmly.
This campaign is proving to be a huge drudge, and I don't begrudge him from fading out. But he should be hitting all of the states, since he thinks he is the nominee.

[benjamin]

Clinton should run as an independent? lmao.

If she's not able to get the party to choose her, there's no way in hell she's going to get the swing voters and disillusioned republicans she'd need to win an independent run. I know hillary fanatics can't begin to believe it, but, she is even less popular outside of the democratic party. If she ran as an independent, she would barely beat the Libertarians. I hope she does run as an independent just so I could laugh at all the people complaining that the reason no one votes for her is she has a vagina, not because she's a lying untrustworthy sack with a questionable senatorial voting record.

Hillary supporters, watch out! You're under fire by Bosnian snipers! Battle on brave Clintonites, battle on!!!

[Pat Wilson]

Women that will change parties because Hillary in not the nominee or in the ticket will regret it when McCain appoints those conservative judges to the bench, a decision that your daughters will have to live with....

[Pat Wilson]

Women that will change parties because Hillary in not the nominee or in the ticket will regret it when McCain appoints those conservative judges to the bench, a decision that your daughters will have to live with....

[Ryan.clintonhater]

I think its funny on all the boards i see, Clinton supporters spewing out about how they will never vote obama, wah wah wah stuff like that.

What you forget is that as much as your single vote counts, an overwhelming group of Americans has already showed their support for Obama.

So to say you won't, can't, never will vote for Obama maybe true but in the ends means little.

This country is far too tired of old politics and the "status quo", and since the Republicans have basically screwed any chance of getting presidency this time around (thanks Bush!, you at least did something useful in office). In the end you can prepare for it or don't, but it's gonna happen anyway.

All the way Obama > Double-Talker Hillary

[ts]

What's with all these posts saying that not choosing Hillary as the nominee is necessarily sexist? Isn't choosing Hillary only because she's a woman just as sexist as rejecting her only on those same grounds? Why is it less valid to decide against Hillary on the basis of her policies, personal history, and campaign tactics than it is to decide in her favor on those same basis? What is sexist about stating that her chances for winning the nomination at this point are small, and that the party would benefit from consolidating arround a nominee? Weren't the same things said about Huckabee before he dropped out? Why don't you think that the same things would be said about Hillary if she were a man?

Sexism has never entered into my desire at this point to get behind Barack. The facts speak for themselves. Extrapolating from voting trends among super delegates, poll results, demographic analysis, etc., that Barack is going to be the nominee is not in and of itself sexist. How can it be when all you are looking at is pure data?

Hillary is one tough woman, just like Barack is one tough guy. They can both stand up for themselves. It is the case that certain voters vote based on race and/or gender; both campaigns must answer for any exploitation of those tendencies that they might employ. But from what I have seen, the only concrete accusations against the Obama camp of exploiting sexism has been what is called a "condescending attitude" on the part of Obama. I find it very difficult to give any credit to those accusations considering that a tough person like Hillary should be able to brush off those "attitudes" and use them to her advantage (which she in fact has, from the look of it).

I would very much like to know in what concrete ways the Obama camp has attempted to exploit sexism, other than through the use of a "condescending attitude." Hillary, for her part, has actually said that she should win because more white people support her than support Obama.

[Mark O]

Well I wouldn't have used the word disrespect - it's simply knowing how to maximize your vote and how to win - which is what Obama has done (notwithstanding Clinton's recent protestations).

The real point is, if Hillary had listened to some of her more astute advisors, or if her staff hadn't been playing silly political games and hadn't leaked that internal memo, she might now be the nominee. What this shows is that she lacked the management skills to be president. She simply wasn't ready on day one, but Obama was. That's the difference.

[Benjamin]

kalli said "He visited 57 states and need to add one more state. He said it in Beaverton, OR, my mom laughed hysterically, priceless."

Yeah, that was funny. Not as priceless as "First Lady, Action Hero(TM)" Hillary recalling how she was under sniper fire in Bosnia, but still funny.

[gk]

I think the democratic party has squandered it's chance. From where I sit it looks to me that the party has given up America for the sake of political correctness and the glory of "first in American history...". So I think the whole Obama/Clinton fight is pointless - the end result is the same - an unelectable candidate. That is unless there is some conspiracy to kill off everyone over 65 before the general election that I have not been let in on.

[John Quimby]

Don:

An Obama/ClintonTicket would make this calculation irrelevant in November.

[Michael]

I'm finding it interesting that the majority of "I love Hillary..." type of posters invariably use the same kind of angry, arrogant and "elitist" wording that Hillary herself seems to use, heh heh...verrryyyy interesting.

[UFO]

Don, if shit had wings, your head would be the first spot it would land on. Reality is reality. And the reality is that the Republican controlled media, especially CNN and MSNBC have done a number on Sen. Clinton campaign; that is why she is down at this point and fighting. Also Sen. Husain supporters have been using bullying and underhanded tactics at the polling booth to gain vote and to gain delegates. And lastly, Republicans who have been pretending to be Democrats, and who have been elected as Democrats ( ie. Nancy Palosi, Chris Dodd, Ted Kenedy, etc, etc.) are empowering Sen. Husain because he is the weaker of the two candidate; and if Sen. Husain enters the General election he will loose to Sen. McCain.

[Steve Fought]

What if Hillary Clinton had voted against giving George W. Bush the authority to invade Iraq?

[thinking straight]

There is more sexism than racism going on here, and not just with the press. I'm tired of the racist card. Obama is 1/2 white. That said...

To those who support either Clinton or Obama:
To say you would vote for McCain if your candidate is not the nominee means you are voting for the wrong reasons. This election is not about a black man or a white woman. This election is about 2 people with basically the same goals, just different ways of getting there, both of whom have a very different value system than the Republican candidate.

If your brain is working, you either believe in what the candidate you support believes or you don't. This is not about revenge because your candidate lost in a primary, this is about you and your family's future and the future of the US.

THINK, people! You want more of the same? Voting for an independent gives the Presidency to McCain and America is doomed to 4 more years of "W". You ready for that?

[tiddle]

I'll have my last laugh when Obama repeated McGovern's disaster to not winning any state, saved one, if Obama thinks any of the states is sure bet. Does he really think that he's going to carry KY simply because he has the Dem mantle? History will tell us that, the kind of arrogance Obama has displayed is just so hard to swallow.

But perhaps he's saving himself an excuse, that "hey I didn't even campaign there, so if I lose, it's not because I'm not popular, but because I didn't campaign there." There same stupid argument the Obama campaign put forth that, since he didn't campaign in FL, he has the full excuse that he should lose FL. WRONG. He lost FL not because he didn't campaign there (HRC didn't either), but because he simply CAN'T and WON'T win FL.

Everyone has been saying (or rather, hoping/praying) that once the nomination is over, the party will be united. WRONG AGAIN. The wound that HRC gets pushed over won't be healed, and it will not be healed by voting for Obama. We'll see to it that the arrogance of the Dem party would ultimately leads it to eat the dust, served up by Obama.

[ridgerunner]

In two weeks, he had two primaries and stopped once in Kentucky, in Louisville, early on. Louisville isn't culturally or politically similar to most of the rest of the state. A stop in Louisville isn't going to persuade the rest of the state to listen in as much of the state doesn't identify with Louisville. It's also hard not to compare the attention Edwards paid to the state, visiting Prestonsburg or Clinton who has been here several times and has sent her daughter and husband to campaign. I think many Kentucky voters who might have swung to Obama will deduce that Senator Clinton is more interested in listening to Kentucky voters.

I wouldn't use the word disrespect but one short visit since his other visit to Louisville in August 2007 is not consistent with his 50 state enpower the voter strategy.
I have to say Obama's 50 state strategy now feels more like a 48 state one.

[mary westermeyer]

Kentuckyians are not red necks as someone said.We are fair in our thinking.Obama promises pie in the sky for everyone and life does not work that way.He is just talk and promises that cant be kept.

[Clark]

Fran:

Interesting that you dare to call the black community "appalling" because they are voting for Obama because of his color.

You did say people who vote according to a candidate's color are appalling, yes?

[Jim]

Disrespected states? Pfff. Don, you're silly.

[mary westermeyer]

Kentuckyians are not red necks as someone said.We are fair in our thinking.Obama promises pie in the sky for everyone and life does not work that way.He is just talk and promises that cant be kept.

[Lee]

Billary, say good night, and good bye.

[KatieP]

For those of you who would rather vote for McCain if Obama is the nominee: WHAT???? Have we not learned anything over the last 8 years? McCain is a war monger, a hypocrit, a flip-flopper and unstable. Haven't we had enough of this regime? To vote for him as a protest is irresponsible and dangerous. I have always considered myself a "feminist" and I am thoroughly disgusted with the way Hillary Clinton has run her campaign. For me, the bigger picture is more important to me than the need to see a woman as a President (although I am sad to see it may not work out this time). I was a big supporter of Bill Clinton, but in this case I have found them both behaving as though they are entitled to the candidacy. They have both made questionable comments about Obama's religion and race and have been using tactics right out of the Rove training manual. Why is she so proud of capturing the majority of votes from the undereducated and racist? Regardless, if she becomes the nominee, I will vote for her because I know McCain is so vastly different in policy/attitude than either Democratic candidate. Use your heads and don't talk about Democrats "blowing it". You'd be the one blowing it for the Democrats and for this country.

[Cary]

@Rob Anderson

>>The word 'disrespect' may be used as a noun only, not as a transitive verb. <<

Uh....yes, it can, Rob. Get your grammar straight before you start disrepecting those who use it correctly....

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/disrespect

[David]

"The word 'disrespect' may be used as a noun only, not as a transitive verb"

According to Merriam-Webster, the use of "disrespect" as a transitive verb dates back to 1614 -- the use of it as a noun dates to 1621. What in the world are you talking about?

Am I being too cynical in thinking that it's no coincidence that "disrespect" as a transitive verb is widely used by the black community?