I agree that Obama should have played in Kentucky, but not necessarily for some of the reasons you do, Noam.  Obama and his supoporters are so very eager for him to move into general election mode.  Since last week, he's really spent his time debating McCain-- actually defending himself from charges that he's reckless on foreign policy-- and he is ignoring the dem nomination race.  He's doing rallies in Oregon but they are more general election rallies rather than those with his primary race.  Yet even though he has moved on, a good part of the contry hasn't.  It wants to vote, have a say in the primary.  So Obama moves on before the process is finished.  I wouldn't be surprised if he suffers some blowback from that.

Also, I don't see why he needs to make this "majority delegate" announcement tonight.  We can easily see that he has the most pds and now, sds.  Why must he make a big deal of it?  I think no matter how skillfully he does it-- and I don't doubt he'll be crafty and careful-- he risks alienating people.  Why risk it?  He's gonna have more sd's flowing his way shortly.  I think his announcement is simply a risk he shouldn't take.  

1) It will look trivial once Oregon is done.

2) Obama has plenty of time to try to woo these Appalachian voters between the first of June and the first of November. Maybe he'll break through. Maybe he'll make a veep pick that will matter to these people. Maybe he won't.

Whatever happens, I think he has to follow an electoral strategy that doesn't include Kentucky and West Virginia. And he is going to have to bust his ass to get votes in the west and east sections of Pennsylvania, and the urban centers of Ohio.

The Deep South should be sending Appalachia a big "Thanks for being so racist, you've taken the pressure off us!" bouquet right about now.

Oregon is a swing state and Kentucky's not. Oregon is probably a better place to fundraise too. Obama's strategy makes sense to me.

Here's why it may not matter as well as to what Woody says (so I am divided on this).  The lead headline tonight is NOT that Hillary won Kentucky by 35%, but that Obama has won the majority of delegates.  He stole her thunder once again, just as he did with Edwards' endorsement after WV.  Very smart campaign narrative.  Clearly, his advisors are out-smarting Clinton's.   BTW, he just made a fabulous comment about gender.  Good pivot to the dem race being about an energized party, not a divided one.

Tammy, I don't know how "big" a deal his pledged delegates comments will be tonight. But it makes perfect sense that he would discuss it because - like it or not - pledged delegates are a BIG DEAL when it comes to getting the Democratic nomination for president of the United States.

Honestly, I think you have to cast your critical eye away from Obama and toward those who would be "alienated" by his (likely) quite true declaration that, after tonight, he WILL have a majority of pledged delegates. Does that count for nothing? (And why should he walk on eggshells with Clinton supporters? Part of Hillary's "kitchen sink" criticism of him is that he's not tough enough to battle the GOP.)

I know PC decorum dictates that we don't dare question those people who will be offended by such a statement, really, because they are so personally entwined with this woman Hillary Rodham Clinton that any political defeat for her is a personal defeat for them. But seriously, just based on the merits of words and what they mean: Once Oregon is done, Obama may well have an unsurmountable majority of pledged delegates.

Besides, any announcement about a pledged delegate majority will be geared toward the superdelegates, not the "good" people of Kentucky or wherever.

Yeah, that Edwards endorsement worked wonders in Kentucky.

Keying off Noam 's question about whether Obama should have played in KY, a pro-Hillary friend writes

Woody.  Maybe you should let go of your grudge with Hillary.  I'm not bashing Obama.  I am commenting about risks I don't think he needs to take.  In fact, he didn't make much of his majority pds in his speech tonight.  Of course this thing is about the delegates and of course he has an insurmountable lead in the pds.  That will "earn" him the nod.  My point was about when and if he should make a big deal about it.  You may not care about the Hillary supporters who still say they won't vote for Obama, but I do and so do many people in the media, and campaign experts or surrogates.  Even Obama cares about them as he noted tonight.  Time will tell if most Clinton supporters will rally behind Obama as I now do. In the mean time, why make it harder?  That was my point.

Peter, Edwards may not have worked for Obama in KY, but it seems to have done so nationally.  Obama is up 16 points now over Clinton, drawing sound support with women and working-class whites.  There is only one contradiction that I wish someone would explain to me: why have Obama's core groups deserted him in WV and KY? The young and educated went for Clinton there and not by a narrow margin.  What does this mean?  

Well, he's only up six in the Rasmussen tracking polls. And those numbers nationally are the result of the media flogging that the race is over. Which, barring a political tsunami, it is. Obama's run a great campaign and I'm not inclined to give Edwards jumping in at one minute to midnight any of the credit.

I don't get it.  All these torturous attempts to figure out how could Obama have won white working class votes in Oregon and Iowa and Wisconsin but lose so badly in KY and WV and close losses in Ohio and PA.  He lost in KY and WV and parts of PA because APpalachia is the most racist part of AMerica without significant African American votes.  He will lose these states and they are meaningless to a Democrat and he will win PA and OH because despite the anti African American vote in parts of those states enough women will vote for Obama over another Scalia on the Supreme Court.

Tammy,

My grudge with Hillary isn't as big as you think. (It's bigger than it was eight weeks ago, but still.) My point was, I didn't see why he couldn't make hay about having an insurmountable lead in pledged delegates when, in fact, he has an insurmountable lead in pledged delegates. (But why do you have the word "earn" in quote marks? That makes it seem like it isn't true or real or something. He most certainly has EARNED his insurmountable lead in pledged delegates.)

And don't assume that I don't care about HRC supporters who say they won't vote for Obama. I am very, very concerned about them. My concern is: What is *their* concern, exactly? What is it that they expect in exchange for their vote? Why are they so ... (looking for a word other than "childish") ... obstinate in their opposition to the presumptive Dem nominee?  What do they want from Obama, exactly?

Obama was remiss in not going after at least his demographic in Kentucky. The general election is going to be very interesting.

WoodyBombay's question is a good one: what do Clinton's more dug-in supporters want from Obama? One of the panelists on CNN (or was it John King?) said that he'd heard that some people in Clinton's corner thought Obama's comments about her, in his speech, were patronizing. For heaven's sake! Obama said she broke barriers and made America a more open place for his daughters, etc. When even being gracious is perceived as patronizing, what can he really do to win these Clinton followers over? Now this may have just been her surrogates pushing the misogyny frame when it clearly doesn't apply, in order to stoke the passion of her followers -- in which case they're stooping pretty low. But if that reaction was coming from her followers themselves, I doubt there's much Obama can do to actively win them over. The only hope is that time will ease their sense of grievance so that by November they'll be thinking straight.

As Oregon and Washington and Wisconsin and Minnesota and and Iowa and Virginia show, this is about culture, not race. West Virginia and Kentucky are pig-f'ing states. Why should I care about them? And why should I think they tell me anything about the country as a whole?

Yawn.

West Virginia and and Kentucky are racist states, as the exit polls show, and as nobody on CNN had the guts to say.

Woody, I don't care what the merits of Obama's case is, I don't care if it's inconsistent to ask that he be tough and then complain if he's tough on his opponent when that's Hillary Clinton. I don't care. Look: he's going to win the nomination. There is NO reason to be catty or resentful, no matter how justified it may feel. He should praise her to the skies, to the extent that he can credibly do so.

And I don't think it's going to Denver because I believe that after Puerto Rico is done the supers will come rolling in and give him the magic number [which will be definitively determined on May 31, please please lard]. So I do not think there will even be a fight, anywhere. Just a lot of supers in the fetal position, rocking back and forth until June 3.

And, if Obama has hit the number with a combination of pledged and supers, and she STILL tries to, say, poach them with electability arguments - try to get them to flip before the convention - then that would be so jaw droppingly arrogant and offensive that a lot of her own supporters would desert her. So any way you slice it, even with most-crazy-scenario, he wins.

Focus on McCain.

Tammy- Obama doesn't do well in Appalachia. That's been the case throughout this primary. Racism is a big part of this. Not clear on how we figure anyone "abandoned him". Racists in Appalachia weren't voting for him before WVa and they're not voting for him now.

Any Democratic strategy for the general election which counts on winning Kentucky is naive at best.  Let 'em go.  

hemlock41 asks:

"WoodyBombay's question is a good one: what do Clinton's more dug-in supporters want from Obama?"

Among Clinton's many supporters there is a core of super-loyal partisans who feel entitled to feel entitled. Their's is a holy outrage, and a deep and lasting resentment, that Obama should have run at all, let alone succeed at beating their champion. Clinton herself sees things as they do and her own haughtiness incites  theirs. Clinton has qualities that also positively inspire her loyalists, but it's the shadow side of her that whips up the fury and vengefulness. I don't know how many can be reached by reaching out to them. It probably does feel like he's patronizing her because they feel diminished as they see her feeling diminished by Obama.