33 of Oregon's 36 counties rely on timber payments to fund schools, libraries, law enforcement and other community sustaining resources.

Two weeks ago U.S. Rep. Greg Walden (R-OR) told those 33 counties' sheriffs, librarians, teachers and other leaders that he has a higher priority - Big Oil profits.

"Greg Walden stood on the house floor and voted to close schools, shutter libraries and eliminate sheriff's patrols so that Big Oil could raise its profits," Democratic Party of Oregon Chair Meredith Wood Smith said. "When our rural communities needed him most, he voted to cut their funding. Watch the video to see how Oregon has reacted to Walden's `betrayal.' Then call him up and remind him he works for Oregon, not Big Oil."

Click here to learn more.

Yesterday I spent a little time with the latest poll and memo from Greenberg Quinlan Rosner Research entitled "Rural American Battleground."

Their poll (682 respondents polled between 3/13 and 3/15 in the rural parts of NH, PA, OH, MI, WI, IA, MN, MS, FL, VA, CO, NV and NM) puts McCain ahead of Obama by a 9-point margin, 50-41.

There's reason for Obama to take heart, however.  In '00 and '04, Gore and Kerry lost rural America by 16 and 19 points respectively.  So he's already ahead of that curve.

Shepherdstown, W. Va.

While Barack Obama is busy ordering champagne for his premature victory party on May 20th, Hillary Clinton is pounding the West Virginia trail to get-out-the-vote in Tuesday's primary.

By all accounts Clinton will enjoy a double-digit win in West Virginia, followed by another in Kentucky one week later. And even though Obama, his surrogates, and pundit parrots are furiously pre-spinning his losses in these two states by suggesting that they don't really matter -- West Virginia and Kentucky could end up being game-changers for Clinton. Here's why:

Rural America can determine who becomes the next President. And West Virginia and Kentucky show off Clinton's commanding rural advantage.

But they aren't the only ones. Check out the county-by-county results from four very close contests (Clinton is red; Obama, green):

Missouri (Obama won by 1.3%):

New Mexico (Clinton won by 1%):

Texas (Clinton won by 3.5%):

Indiana (Clinton won by 2%)

As you can see, Clinton's base covers a broader geographic region, nearly a sweep of counties.  Although population counts may be relatively equal between the red and green areas -- these maps illustrate how well she consistently performs in rural America.

Hillary has hit her stride in small towns and rural communities across the country, connecting with working class voters with a populist appeal reminiscent of Bobby Kennedy. For those who have followed Hillary Clinton's life and career, we know it's genuine. You can see the joy on her face when she's working the rope line in town squares, even at the end of a 16-hour day. Of course Obama's "bitter" moment aided her, but cinching this demographic segment is a crucial achievement that Clinton has earned for the Democrats. And, you might say...one benefit of this extended primary season that some party members are anxious to end.

A Democratic pollster for the Wall Street Journal and NBC News said it well:

Rural and small-town voters are the best indicators of whether a candidate is connecting with the values of Middle America. "They are America.  Too often Democrats end up with candidates who can speak only to metro America. If you can speak to [rural and small-town America], then you relate to the rest of America."

Pay attention, folks. These are General Election swing voters needed to reach 270 electoral votes.

Swing voters.

And no one understands that better than the superdelegates, many of whom rely on these same voters for their own re-elections.

So Barack Obama might think twice about dismissing West Virginia and Kentucky, even if he calculates that their votes and delegates are inconsequential to the nomination. The hard-working people of Appalachia and bluegrass country represent a nationwide constituency capable of delivering the White House in November. And for Clinton, they will put her within striking distance of a popular vote lead.

Note: Maps and election results from uselectionatlas


Cross posted at texasdarlin.

TexasDarlin, all rights reserved.
Not affiliated with the Hillary Clinton campaign

With the news of Obama's disparaging gaffe spreading like 'wild fire' across the country, Obama is playing defense in an attempt to ward off criticism that could potentially damage his candidacy for the Democratic nomination. If the news wires are any indication, then he is going to have a long and hard climb trying to explain to the American people what he "really" meant by those demeaning comments he uttered at a private-event held in San Francisco.

Obama's poorly chosen words are creating a furor, especially among 'small-town' rural and suburban voters. What is so disturbing about Obama's now "infamous" remarks, is not the context in which those words were uttered, but rather how Obama is handling the critical situation he is now faced with. Instead of denouncing his comments as "a terrible mis-statement" in the course of a campaign, he is defending his statements, and attacking his critics for attempting to make political 'hay' over the week-end.

There is no one better able to portray the meaning of the word 'bitter', then Barack Obama himself. Point in hand. It's now evident that he has trouble when it comes to dealing with controversies that surround him, and is unable to handle negative news that makes him look less like the "angelic" candidate that he portrays himself as, and more like a "demeanic" and "crazed" candidate, that is forced to backtrack on his statements in order to appease or pander to his supporters.

Now that he finds himself over a "hot stove" he is trying to divert attention away from his remarks and towards Hillary Clinton for criticizing him over his self-spoken insulting remarks. Obama seems to think that his remarks are a joke, or at the least is making a joke out of his remarks, as was evident today, when he referred to Clinton, as "Annie Oakley- packing a six-shooter on the trail", in reference to her criticism of his 'Bitter' remarks made in San Francisco. Yet with all the rhetoric that is being made in recent days over this controversy, it now appears that the 'joke' is on Obama.

When new poll numbers are released this week, and people have had an opportunity to digest the context of his speech in San Francisco, we will then know what "legs" those poorly chosen words will have in the upcoming primaries, and when the time comes for superdelegates to decide on a nominee.
See: Most Voters Disagree with Obama Comment,
http://www.boston.com/news/politics/poli ticalintelligence/2008/04/most_voters_di s.html

For the time being, Obama has much explaining to do, as he tries to calm the debate over what he really meant by those now regrettable comments in San Francisco. At the very least, what momentum he may have had going into Pennsylvania's contest next week has been quenched.

Furthermore, if the voters of America continue to talk about his political gaffe the way it is being portrayed at this moment, then Obama may just find himself standing on the "other side" of Pennsylvania Avenue after election day.

MSNBC-VIDEO
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21134540/vp/ 24106234#24106234

OBAMA'S 'BITTER' COMMENTS HALTS HIS MOMENTUM
http://www.usnews.com/usnews/politics/bu lletin/bulletin_080414.htm

OBAMA STILL FACING FALL-OUT OVER PRIVATE COMMENTS
http://www.allheadlinenews.com/articles/ 7010632115

BLUE-COLLAR DISTRUST OF OBAMA IN THE RUST-BELT
http://www.spiegel.de/international/worl d/0,1518,547227,00.html

OBAMA'S GARY HART BLUNDER?
http://weblogs.baltimoresun.com/news/pol itics/blog/2008/04/obamas_gary_hart_blun der.html

Bittergate: Pundits Doubt Obama As Never Before
http://nymag.com/daily/intel/2008/04/bittergate_pundits_doubt_obama_as_never_before.html"

This video, courtesy of TalkingPointsMemo sheds some light on how Obama really views rural America.

Are we, as Democrats, going to disagree with this analysis?

I think the whole issue is Obama's unwise use of the term "cling" without qualifying it by saying that they are only clinging to those issues in the voting booth.

Obama didn't mean to imply that people cling to religion, or develop a fondness for guns when they are economically disadvantaged. He was talking about how many poor people consistently vote against their economic interest (Republican) because Republicans have been so effective at making the elections about  things like gay marriage, gun control, and religion.

It's why Democrats lose elections that they should easily win. Clinton, for piling onto Obama over this and making it a big story...is doing the GOP's work for them once again.

...sigh....and I thought the Democrats might just win this one.

Silly me.

Crossposted from http://jsamuelirregular.blogspot.com/

As kossack decider06 said Wednesday night on Air America:

Columbus, Kentucky is so rural, it is an hour away from the nearest McDonald's.

In a town of 229, John Edwards drew a crowd of 1800 people.  Now, remember this is one of the most rural areas of the country.  That is a 800% turnout.  While other candidates have boasted their turnouts in cities like Atlanta and New York, you cannot deny the fact that John Edwards is a Democrat that is appealing to rural voters in a way no other Democratic presidential candidate has in a very long time.

Why is John Edwards the most electable? by ManfromMiddletown (6/07)

Well, it looks like diversity is not only scary, it makes people unhappy. Erm, right.

I wrote about what I think is a major hidden variable in the low social capital of modern, urban populations last year when I came back from two months in a small, Costa Rican farming community. Essentially, it seems to me a problem of comparing ad hoc social networks with traditional family or geography-based social networks. It takes a long time to get to know and trust people, which is a lot harder when the population you're looking at is more likely to move house frequently and to live farther from easy proximity to family members.

But also, people's tastes in social activities are changing, which reminds me of a comment and discussion at the rural issues panel at last weekend's Yearly Kos. Bill Bishop, of the The Daily Yonder, said that Republicans had been so successful in spite of their unpopular stances because they'd adopted a social network model that was reminiscent of churches. "Stong social networks repel people who now vote Democratic," he said.

That really ticked me off (I know, not hard, whatever.)

Late Thursday night, the House Agriculture Committee unanimously passed a farm bill that can only be described as astoundingly unresponsive to widespread calls for reform. That bill may be considered by the full House as soon as this week. Now that the farm bill is out of committee, Nancy Pelosi is the most important player in the process. Speaker Pelosi and the House Rules Committee have to choose - and that choice will say much about how they intend to govern. It brings to mind a question Al might ask - Does the House leadership stand with the people or the powerful?

Speaker Pelosi will effectively decide the outcome of the floor debate. That debate should be held after all Americans have the opportunity to make their voices heard regarding the farm bill that has been passed by the Agriculture Committee- and that means delaying floor consideration of the farm bill until after the August recess. After that, the Speaker has three options.

Option 1: She can live up to the repeated promises of the newly elected majority and allow for a full, open, and honest debate. Option 2: She can short-circuit debate, severely curtail or eliminate the number of amendments for floor consideration, and generally run the House in the same fashion as her predecessors. Option 3: She can support real reform on the central issue of farm policy- ending million-dollar subsidy checks to mega-farms.

The third option appears to be highly unlikely. Here is Pelosi's three part statement regarding the just-passed-out-of-committee farm bill:

"The Farm Bill represents a critical first step toward reform by eliminating payments to millionaires,

Not so fast. The Committee's sham reform proposal lowered the adjusted gross income limit on farm program payments to a still-astonishing $1,000,000. And if you're married the limit is $2,000,000. Are we supposed to be pleased by this? Who in their right mind thinks this is actual reform?

Contact Pelosi and tell her to reject the Ag Committee's false reform.

Back to the Speaker....