The War Between the States Oregon vs. West Virginia

Anyone who reads DU today knows the score. In our simplistic world, West Virginia has been a very naughty state and that is why Santa has filled its stocking with lumps of coal. Oregon, on the other hand, is the most supremely wonderful state in all the land.

Why? Because Clinton is favored to win the West Virginia primary and Obama is favored to win the Oregon primary. And every other reason cited is a load of bullshit.

I. Some things people may not know about West Virginia.

As the Civil War began, West Virginia seceded from Virginia and became a state within the Union. That makes West Virginia the only state to leave the Confederacy during the Civil War, agree to end slavery and join the Union. West Virginia is an Appalachian state and it has the poverty to prove it. According to wiki, they are third lowest in per capita income, lowest in adults with a bachelor degree, and last in median household income. Another site says that a quarter of the adults in the state have not completed high school. Their only major resource is coal. There is a high degree of union penetration as in neighboring Pennsylvania. West Virginia is one of the few remaining states in the US in which the majority of the population is rural.

I have seen West Virginia called a “Red” state, however their state and local politics tends to be Democratic. W. won the last two elections because he appealed to poor, working class voters more than Kerry or Gore. However, Clinton and Dukakis carried the state in the three presidential elections before that. The state’s Senators are the Democrats Byrd and Rockefeller. Sen. Byrd is notorious in some circles for having joined the KKK as a young man, however he left the organization after he entered politics. He also voted against the Iraq War.

http://www.adl.org/learn/ext_us/kkk/active_group_2006.asp?LEARN_Cat=Extremism&LEARN_SubCat=Extremism_in_America&xpicked=4&item=kkk

According to this website, West Virginia has one chapter of the KKK. However according to this site

http://www.jewsweek.com/bin/en.jsp?enDispWho=Article%5El2199&enPage=BlankPage&enDisplay=view&enDispWhat=object&enVersion=0&enZone=Articles

The KKK is exploiting anti-immigration and other issues to stage a comeback in some industrial areas in the south and Midwest including West Virginia.

West Virginia has 5 electoral votes, just 2 less than Oregon.

Unlike some other states which Clinton has won, West Virginia has a relatively low Scots-Irish population and a higher German population. Whites make up 95%, Blacks make up 3%.

According to a Rasmussen 5-7-08 poll, Clinton is ahead 57% Obama 27% Undecided 17%.

II. Equal Time for Oregon

After reading people swearing up and down that Oregon is the bluest of blue states---even though Al Gore only won it by 7000 votes in 2000—I thought I would check it out. Here is what Wiki has to say.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oregon



Ok, Oregon recently became a blue state, but it was not always that way. Sounds like its blueness might be from increasing urbanization as well as a reaction to Bush-Cheney politics, including environmental policy which has hurt the salmon industry---meaning that it could easily go the other way in the future. So that is not what makes Oregon so much better than West Virginia, which has been voting Democratic longer.



Oh my. Oregon sounds like a southern state transported up north to me. Also from Wikipedia



Those who know about the KKK, know that its heyday was in the 1920s when it was an anti-immigration movement. Oregon was one it its great centers:

http://tribes.tribe.net/beaverstate/thread/ab46a2de-b61d-48c1-b19c-271cff86d956



More here:

http://www.ohs.org/education/oregonhistory/historical_records/dspDocument.cfm?doc_ID=419C6376-F5D3-411B-1319F7210FB9FB94


And more on the Klans power in Oregon during the 1920s:

http://arcweb.sos.state.or.us/exhibits/war/intro/between.html


http://www.againsthate.pdx.edu/hategroups.htm
According to this link, Oregon currently has three chapters of the KKK, two NeoNazi chapters as well as other unspecified “hate” groups. So, I guess tolerance is not why Oregon is a better state than West Virginia.


On the plus side, Oregon has a booming economy, with a mixture of industries. This includes high tech, a variety of types of companies, including manufacturing, music, agriculture, fishing, lumber, with the 26th largest gross state product in the US.

Demographics: White 84% Latino 9% Black 2% Asian 4% German, English and Scots-Irish ancestry in that order are the main countries of origin as with West Virginia. They are 22nd in per capita income.

Some other comparison statistics are available here:
http://projects.washingtonpost.com/elections/keyraces/census/or/
http://projects.washingtonpost.com/2008-presidential-candidates/primaries/states/wv/d/
Residents of Oregon are twice as likely to have a college education as residents of West Virginia.

The same Rasmussen 5-7-08 poll above show Obama 51% Clinton 39% Undecided 10%

III. Summing it All Up

Oregon is no “bluer” a state than West Virginia. If anything, it is a red state that has recently begun to switch to blue.

West Virginia has had a longer history of electing Democrats. The Bush presidential vote may represents a sympathy vote for a man who was ridiculed as “stupid” by his political opponents (since a quarter of the people in West Virginia have not completed High School, this attack may have elicited their sympathy). It also suggests that both Gore and Kerry---wealthy men who presented themselves as dignified, highly intelligent and educated candidates—may have been seen as unable to understand the plight of people who live in an extreme state of chronic poverty, many of them dependent upon dangerous labor in coal mines for their survival with no hope for a better life for their children.

Oregon, on the other hand, has a much more average standard of living, a higher rate of education and a more varied economy which allows people more flexibility in seeking employment. Oregon is also less rural. These things make it less important that a candidate be seen as empathetic or understanding. Voters in Oregon are more willing to take a chance. If one segment of the economy suffers, there are other segments that can take up the slack

In terms of race, Oregon is just as "white" as West Virginia---and it kept itself that way using the law and intimidation for 70 plus years. It has had a stormy history of relations with its citizens of different races, religions and ethnicities. They have their own KKK chapters and their own Nazis and their own skinheads. People there are not enlightened souls who can see beyond all differences. As for why Democrats in Oregon favor Obama, it is more likely that the presence of a strong Republican Party in the state has the same effect in Oregon that it does in southern states where it siphons off the conservative vote and leaves the Democratic Party in the state more liberal than it would be in a state were the Democratic Party was the only or overwhelmingly dominant party. This can cause a candidate to win in the primary who can not win in the general election---as in the southern states of Alabama, Georgia, Mississippi and Texas. The fact that Democrats won in 2000 (by 7000 votes) and 2004 may be a good sign. On the other hand, there has traditionally been antipathy towards Texans along the west coast. An Arizonan like John McCain may not encounter this in Oregon.

Once we eliminate the bullshit difference that people in Oregon are supposed to be enlightened while people in West Virginia are supposed to be Dixiecrats straight out of 1960, the true difference between the two states is poverty. People in West Virginia are poor. They have low income, low education, they have limited access to jobs---it is basically the coal mines or tourism or a support industry job or welfare. With all those mountains, even farming is difficult. It is in desperate need of help.

Oregon is an optimistic state, with a diverse economy, income and education that make it average for the US, lots of natural resources and a great climate. Jobs will continue to move to Oregon no matter what the federal government does.

Now tell me, what kind of Democratic pisses on one of the poorest states in the United States, a state that is a traditional blue state, because it favors one Democratic candidate over another, because it believes that its chosen candidate will do more to end its wretched misery? What kind of Democrat tells the poor state "You should be more like this other state over here. See? They aren't racists." When the other state has even more KKK chapters and an even more abysmal race history. When the other state favors the correct candidate only because it is blessed with more wealth and a more diverse economy?

That is a rhetorical question by the way. I already know what kind of "Democrat" does that. The kind that is trying to divide this party so that it will lose this fall.

As long as their is poverty in America it should be our number one priority, not an after thought.

Nothing against WVA, wonderful what they did during the civil war. Even Byrd repented. But Oregon is a bluer state these days. Hopefully WVA will be again.

if you could state your point in the first paragraph and then elaborate,
people might read what you right.


Do readers a favor, get to the point.

And I can't stand Clinton. Oh, and I lived in Oregon. Portland has this neighborhood... I was told not to go there... it was called "the ghetto". 30% black. They also have skinhead SUBURBS in Portland.

1. Crop burning in the Willamette Valley

(it doesn't rain all summer so there are no grass, no flowers outside the Cascades
and everyone relies on expensive, enviro-questionable irrigation and lawn-watering)

2. No regard for historic preservation in Portland outside of a few "gaslamp" districts

3. No regard for gentrification in city/small towns and minimal regard for elimination of working-class jobs
(since the 60's generation of genuine progressives retired from politics)

4. Road-building throughout the Cascades (paved roads, snaking throughout the lower 48's largest National Forest areas)
to ensure the safety of logging crews on every last 100 acres of old-growth and second-growth forest on concessions yet unsold. They even paved suburban-style switchbacks through the lava fields to ensure ease of motoring access!

5. Half the state is fucking useless DESERT, but you never hear about that in the tourist literature

6. "Creative Class" confined to Portland, Eugene, and a bunch of gentrified artist enclaves, surrounded by dying logging towns and less-than-cafe-society skinhead suburbs. Oh, and most of them are affluent techies, not genuine starving artists or part of any sort of diverse, community with any history in the region.

7. The genuinely large variety of ordinary middle class progressives in most suburban areas is offset by the fact that their lack of hostility towards urban liberals stems purely from the fact that there are no blacks in Portland, and they make it clear that they would not feel comfortable living in a metropolitan area that was more non-white.

8. 30% black neighborhoods is "the ghetto" and considered a no-go area.

9. Continual deforestation and urban sprawl with ever-decreasing application of Portland's supposedly successful UGB

10. No actual non-racist, progressive liberals or libertarians in those woods, just "bitter" rural folk and affluent college/retiree yupsters just like in WV.

Other than that, it's a great state and a wonderful place to grow up in (back when the urban areas had any sort of character, diversity or vitality that comes from class integration, which they don't really have).

ON EDIT: I should emphasize how every state in the union has similar problems, states like WV just SUFFER more because the presence of the affluent white yuppies is not there to hand-wave and explain away problems as relic of the old society that will wither away on its own as more and more people become members of the "creative class".

The Yuppies are coming!

familiar. as for the desert, it is a wonder. half the state is desert and small towns and if anyone on the national level gave a damn about their plights, they are ripe for the pickings. field burning is supposed to be banned in the valley and there is plenty of diversity in the land all over the state. from rain forests to desert, Oregon has a bit of everything. There are skin heads in Portland and I wish they were all in jail. The dorks that killed the Ethiopian student are and their idiot leader, the WAR guy is stone broke from the lawsuit. good.

If, for instance, someone from Maryland were to drop in and list our deficiencies, the result would be not so much reflective self-examination, but an immediate escort out of town.

Your statements are far too general to be constructive in any case, regardless of the source, and demonstrate the difficulty any well-intentioned outside perspective would have. I think at least one point in McCamy's write-up is good - from my perspective here in OR, there is nothing useful I can say about what is wrong or right or useful to do in WV. Arguments to the contrary tend to be beside the point or distractions from the local problems that can be usefully addressed.

I live in Portland, and yet, I find ALL areas of Oregon to possess something special and USEFUL ....

Deserts can be among some of the most beautiful and amazing places in the world ... The epitomize how strong survival traits can transform species and regions .... Your disdain is obviously personal ....

Furthermore, your sweeping generalizations are, across the board, ridiculous .....

Glad I use my own two eyes and ears to learn, because I don't need such narrow-mindedness in my life ....

but likes to mouth off to folks and let them think he does....

There are 95 neighborhoods in Portland. My family chose to live in one of the "black" ones. I have never heard anyone describe it as a place to stay away from. While I do live across the street from a park that has had occassional gang violence in the summer, it is NOTHING like the violence I saw growing up in NYC. While Portland is certainly very, very white, and it is true that it was redlined in the past, it is nowhere near as segregated as the NYC I grew up in, or the NYC of today. Visit any of the boroughs of NY and you'll see what I mean. Doesn't come close, sorry.

where might those be?

:shrug:

- dismissive 'whatever' remark sums up your arrogance quite splendidly. You didn't even have the courtesy to actually read what McCamy wrote from a lot of research.

So Dems are supposed to look down on poorer states now? A fine policy, that. Why don't you and your 'New Dems' go join the GOP instead and hobnob with those who blatantly favour the wealthy?

It seems to be a media created fiction that Hillary is the "populist" candidate
and Obama is the "economically conservative, culturally liberal" candidate.

Almost as if the economically conservative, culturally liberal neocon elite
wants to pin their beliefs on the winning candidate and impose their values
on the movement that has rallied to the Democratic Party behind Obama's banner.

That, or Obama is attracting the wrong crowd thanks to skillful media
manipulation, like the Media did to Kerry attempting to portray him as an
elitist and got fools to say "hell yeah, if Kerry's an elitist, I am too!"

Of course Hillary is the candidate that has $100 million... un-inherited...

They are told to feel ashamed and to expect to be ignored during elections and in between. The Dems assume that they will vote for the Dem just because.

I do not favor any candidate but I approved of John Edwards for drawing attention to the plight of the poor and I approve of Clinton to becoming a voice for the poor. Obama should have been doing it all along.

Like the Repub she is fast becoming.

http://www.tnr.com/politics/story.html?id=64032fab-d36d-44b8-817c-6ba2f88f732d

Okay, I've got nothing against WV. Never been there, but that's beside the point.

Are you inventing some kind of war between OR and WV? Did someone say something negative about WV that I'm unaware of? Someone 'pissed on one of the poorest states?' Apparently, it was someone in OR, but I haven't heard about that.

I don't know what the hell you're talking about here--what did OR do to draw your ire? Every state deals with racism--there's no doubt about it. So, why target OR and pretend that their history is any different than other states?

Your snide assumptions about the state and references to 'enlightened souls' aren't helping, either. OR is more rural and struggling than you'd like to admit. Yes, it has more economic variety than WV; it's a west coast state with different trade opportunities than WV. It's also got economic problems, too.

Are you simply trying to ignite some 'red state/blue state' animosity? Why? What did Oregon do to you? Do you really think that shitting all over OR makes another state look better?

that is only voting for Clinton because she is white. As if the whole state should be shunned and punished.

That is the context of my post.

And Oregon is held up a paragon of all that is enlightened and good even though it is exactly the same in terms of race relations as best I can tell from reading up on the two places.

occurred 100 years ago.

- experienced any racism in the decade I've lived here. People are genuinely welcoming and warm.

McCamy doesn't base all her ideas on events that happened 100 years ago - did you even read the op at all, or just browse it for certain key words like 'Civil War'?

What a useless enterprise to try rational discussion with B0 followers.

of Hillary...

I don't give a shit about WV and haven't made any judgments about it because I don't know anything about it. So don't attribute any WV name-calling to me.

I live in OR and the OPs assessment of the state couldn't be further from reality.

"What a useless enterprise to try rational discussion with B0 followers."


LOL! From a supporter of a candidate who hasn't had a reasonable chance of winning the nomination for over two months!

So, you responded to a bunch of people on a website by mocking and attacking other people you've never met in a state that you don't know.

Well, I guess makes a sort of sense. But not in a good way.

Hear hear!

Quite right!

We're all pretty perspicacious here to boot.

Oregon is pretty damn groovy.

We have the right to die with dignity.

To smoke and grow pot if it helps us when we are sick.

A new Domestic partnership law.

We gave our delegates to Kucinich at the last convention.

We vote by mail.

Now, our state legislature is going seriously blue, for the first time in decades. They are working on Universal Health Care for All Oregonians.


It is true there are really two Oregons-one urban, and one rural. But, that is true of California, too.

It is also true that Obama will take both Oregons.

PS Best Wishes to West Virginia. Vote however you damn well please, and be proud of it.

politically compared to many other states. One of the first to implement a bottle law (deposit), to make the entire coastline public property (no one can build on or own the beach), had the only Senator (Wayne Morse) to stand up against the Gulf of Tonkin resolution, has a long tradition of the referendum and initiative petition, a leader in land use planning, a progressive income tax with no sales tax (attempts at a regressive sales tax have been roundly defeated time and again, usually by referendum). I believe we are the only state to have all our elections by mail now, which means we typically have 60% turnout or more. It's a gorgeous state, with a rugged, picturesqe coastline, a volcanic mountain range bisecting the state north to south, one of the most fertile farming regions in the world, coupled with high desert in the eastern half.

Yeah, we have our Right-wingnuts just like any place, but we've managed to keep them mostly in check.

:dem:

If you are looking to make some points by trashing my state to no one's advantage, no thanks. Obama will win our primary and then OR will again support the Democratic candidate. How is that a problem, and at some point will you cease pompous pointless pot-stirring?

(insert profanities here that must later be apologized for)

Both states are quite similar. They are made up of flesh and blood people who have surprisingly similar histories. There are reasons that Oregon is voting for Obama and they have little to do with the state being holier than West Virginia.

All week I have watched people at DU set up these dualities in which they claim that the lack of education and the poverty under which people live in West Virginia has caused them to be filled with hatred towards Obama. This is straight out of Calvanism 101.

What I see instead is a lot of people at DU filled with hatred towards people in WV, who happen to be some of the most wretched poor folks in this country. The news media encourages it, because they like to dump all over poor folks, esp. if they are union members.

It doesn't fit with their preconceptions.

I've been to West Virginia and Kentucky and found them to be beautiful states with good people. I am well aware of Oregon's lesser-known history, but had missed that it has been portrayed here as model of perfection, to the detriment of WV.

Sorry to be a bit sensitive.

I grew up in West Virginia, and recall the racism well. I am sure that WV has progressed
in race issues alot since then, but the economy has gotten worse. Actually, there IS NO ECONOMY there. The only outlet is to move away or join the military. The people are nice there, but given the lack of economic development in WVA, this state would be among last to develop in other ways.

OREGON

Oregon still has a great economy and the climate is certainly much better than WVAs, lending itself
to forestry, fishing and touristry. WVa is warm about 2-3 months of the year, much of it mountainous and hilly. Yes there are valleys that are quite beautiful and level, but that is just a small part of the state.

ECONOMY

"Oregon is also the home of large corporations in other industries. The world headquarters of Nike, Inc. are located near Beaverton. Medford is home to two of the largest mail order companies in the country: Harry and David Operations Corp. which sells gift items under several brands, and Musician's Friend, an international catalog and Internet retailer of musical instruments and related products.Medford is also home to the national headquarters of the Fortune 1000 company, Lithia Motors. Portland is home to one of the West's largest trade book publishing houses, Graphic Arts Center Publishing.

...Oregon has one of the largest salmon-fishing industries in the world, although ocean fisheries have reduced the river fisheries in recent years. Tourism is also strong in the state; Oregon's evergreen mountain forests, waterfalls, pristine lakes (including Crater Lake National Park), and scenic beaches draw visitors year round. The Oregon Shakespeare Festival, held in Ashland, is a tourist draw which complements the southern region of the state's scenic beauty and opportunity for outdoor activities.

...Oregon's gross state product is $132.66 billion as of 2006, making it the 27th largest GSP in the nation.<38>


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oregon#Economy

DEMOGRAPHICS

Demographics of Oregon (csv)
By race ----------------White--Black AIAN* Asian NHPI*
2000 (total population) 93.45% 2.17% 2.54% 3.75% 0.48%
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oregon#Demographics



WEST VIRGINIA

ECONOMY


WVA lost its economy in the late 70's, I know this because I lived there during that
time.

"The economy of West Virginia is one of the most fragile of any U.S. state. According to U.S. Census Bureau data, West Virginia is the third lowest in per capita income,<22> ahead of only Arkansas and Mississippi. It also ranks last in median household income.<23> The proportion of West Virginia's adult population with a bachelor's degree is the lowest in the U.S. at 15.3%.<24>

West Virginia's GDP was $55.6B in 2006, which was a 0.6% increase from 2005. This makes growth rate for the state the 2nd lowest in the nation, behind only Michigan."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_West_Virginia

WVA has been a poor state for a long time.

DEMOGRAPHICS

Only 1.1% of the state's residents were foreign-born, placing West Virginia last among the 50 states in that statistic. It has the lowest percentage of residents that speak a language other than English in the home (2.7%).

Demographics of West Virginia (csv)
By race ----------------White Black AIAN* Asian NHPI*
2000 (total population) 96.01% 3.49% 0.59% 0.66% 0.05%

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/West_virginia#Demographics

because people dump their sewage in the creeks.

There's also the lovely porch decorations:
stoves, refrigerators, washingmachines.

Oh, I've seen an upright piano on a second story porch (outside, not enclosed)

Also lovely - the big electric company spools as frequent picnic tables,
and the ever so beautiful truck tires painted white and used as matching
planters on either side of entranceways to yards.

Or, the use of locust posts for fencing IN the city limits, not on a farm.

6 Whites Allegedly Torture Black Woman In West Virginia For One Week
September 11, 2007 CNN



Six West Virginians charged with kidnapping, torturing and sexually assaulting a woman for at least a week may also face hate crime charges, Logan County Sheriff's officials said Tuesday.


The victim, 20-year-old Megan Williams, is black; those charged are white.

CNN does not normally identify the victim in sexual assault cases, but in this case, Williams' family said they want the public to know what happened.

The suspects include a mother and son, a mother and daughter, and two men.

According to criminal complaints filed in the county, Williams was sexually assaulted, stabbed in the left leg, choked and beaten.

The victim said one of the suspects cut her ankle with a knife while saying, "That's what we do to around here," police records show.

http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/09/11/woman.tortured/index.html

since you have decided to indict WV based upon the activities of the lowest common denominator of its citizens.

http://www.againsthate.pdx.edu/news.htm



http://archive.mailtribune.com/archive/2003/1101/local/stories/03local.htm



http://www.againsthate.pdx.edu/news.htm

West Virginia - Income and Poverty
In 2004, West Virginia had the 2nd lowest personal income per capita among the 50 states ($25,792 per resident).
West Virginia’s personal income relative to the U.S. rose from 73 percent in 1960 to 81 percent in 1975 and fell to 78 percent in 2004 – and still remains well below the U.S. average.

http://www.myonlinemaps.com/west-virginia.php

Oregon - Income and Poverty
In 2004, Oregon ranked 29th among the 50 states in personal income per capita ($30,561 per resident).
http://www.myonlinemaps.com/oregon.php

West Virginia - Educational Attainment
In 2005, West Virginia ranked 36th among the 50 states in the percentage of its adults aged 25 to 64 with at least high school diploma (86.0%).
West Virginia ranked 50th in the percentage of adults aged 25 to 64 with a bachelor’s degree or higher (18.7%) and 44th in the percentage with a graduate or professional degree (7.3%).
Relative to the U.S. average, West Virginia has a larger percentage of adults who have less than a high school education, a much larger percentage who have completed just a high school diploma, and smaller percentages with college degrees

http://www.myonlinemaps.com/west-virginia.php

Oregon - Educational Attainment
In 2005, Oregon ranked 25th among the 50 states in the percentage of its adults aged 25 to 64 with at least high school diploma (88.9%).
Oregon ranked 20th in the percentage of adults aged 25 to 64 with a bachelor’s degree or higher (29.2%) and 18th in the percentage with a graduate or professional degree (10.3%).
Relative to the U.S. average, Oregon has smaller percentages of adults who have less than a high school education and have completed just a high school diploma, a larger percentage with some college but no degree, and about the same as the U.S. average with college degrees – associate and higher
http://www.myonlinemaps.com/oregon.php

Puritans/Calvinists/corporate ruling class/Republicans are scared to death of the poor and those who suffer under the effects of inequality, because they fear that they will rise up, throw off their chains and initiate a successful European style socialist workers revolution.

So, they seek to divide and conquer the working classes along lines of race, religion, ethnicity, gender, language etc. This is what they are doing this election. They do not want real change which might affect the income disparity which they have worked so hard to achieve, so they now have the supporters of the front running Democratic Presidential candidate mocking Americans who are poor or who have had poor educational opportunities, the most significant risk factor for poverty in the US.

read a little bit more about how many presidential elections Oregon voted with Dem vs. Republican. jeezus.

What are you trying to say? All states have KKK chapters and most states have/had horrible things written into their constitutions. New Jersey described mentally ill people as "idiots" and "insane" in our constitution until 2007.

People on the west coast have antipathy toward Texans but not Arizonans? Huh?

I do agree with your last sentence though. I have no idea what the rest of it even is.

Before stuff like DSM-VI, or whatever it's called, there were
three gradations of mental retardation: "idiot", "moron" etc. from Wiki:

Archaic terms

Several traditional terms denoting varying degrees of mental deficiency long predate psychiatry, but have since been subject to the euphemism treadmill. In common usage they are simple forms of abuse. Their now-obsolete use as psychiatric technical definitions is of purely historical interest. They are often encountered in old documents such as books, academic papers, and census forms (for example, the British census of 1901 has a column heading including the terms imbecile and feeble-minded).

There have been some efforts made among mental health professionals to discourage use of these terms. Nevertheless their use persists. In addition to the terms below, the abbreviation retard or tard is still used as a generic insult, especially among children and teens. A BBC survey in 2003 ranked retard as the most offensive disability-related word, ahead of terms such as spastic (not considered offensive in America<8>) and mong.<9>

* Cretin is the oldest and probably comes from an old French word for Christian. The implication was that people with significant intellectual or developmental disabilities were "still human" (or "still Christian") and deserved to be treated with basic human dignity. This term has not been used in any serious or scientific endeavor since the middle of the 20th century and is now always considered a term of abuse: notably, in the 1964 movie Becket (film), King Henry II calls his son and heir a "cretin." "Cretinism" is also used as an obsolescent term to refer to the condition of congenital hypothyroidism, in which there is some degree of mental retardation.

* Idiot indicated the greatest degree of intellectual disability, where the mental age is two years or less, and the person cannot guard himself or herself against common physical dangers. The term was gradually replaced by the term profound mental retardation.

* Imbecile indicated an intellectual disability less extreme than idiocy and not necessarily inherited. It is now usually subdivided into two categories, known as severe mental retardation and moderate mental retardation.

* Moron was defined by the American Association for the Study of the Feeble-minded in 1910, following work by Henry H. Goddard, as the term for an adult with a mental age between eight and twelve; mild mental retardation is now the term for this condition. Alternative definitions of these terms based on IQ were also used. This group was known in UK law from 1911 to 1959/60 as "feeble-minded."

* In the field of special education, Educable (or "educable mentally retarded") refers to MR students with IQs of approximately 50-75 who can progress academically to a late elementary level. Trainable (or "trainable mentally retarded") refers to students whose IQs fall below 50 but who are still capable of learning personal hygiene and other living skills in a sheltered setting, such as a group home. In many areas, these terms have fallen out of favor in favor of "severe" and "moderate" mental retardation.

* Usage has changed over the years, and differed from country to country, which needs to be borne in mind when looking at older books and papers. For example, "mental retardation" in some contexts covers the whole field, but used to apply to what is now the mild MR group. "Feeble-minded" used to mean mild MR in the UK, and once applied in the US to the whole field. "Borderline MR" is not currently defined, but the term may be used to apply to people with IQs in the 70s. People with IQs of 70 to 85 used to be eligible for special consideration in the US public education system on grounds of mental retardation.

* Along with the changes in terminology, and the downward drift in acceptability of the old terms, institutions of all kinds have had to repeatedly change their names. This affects the names of schools, hospitals, societies, government departments, and academic journals. For example, the Midlands Institute of Mental Subnormality became the British Institute of Mental Handicap and is now the British Institute of Learning Disability. This phenomenon is shared with mental health and motor disabilities, and seen to a lesser degree in sensory disabilities.

Sorry, but I love the beaver state.

And yes, that is our state's nickname, and it sure as hell is not the duck state.

Also, we do it better in oregon.

But a lot of poor voters in a lot of states have "won" during this primary, because they have been given a choice of candidates and have been allowed to express their voice. They appreciate that. The poor are usually not consulted in American politics. Their vote this fall could make all the difference and if health insurance and other reforms are passed they could be the key to many Democratic victories to come.

remember him, the one who placed second in Iowa but wasn't even mentioned in the MSM commentary on that election? The one where Hillary placed third, yet was anointed the "candidate" from then on?

and voting for Hillary because you're poor would be a typical mistake of undereducated people who don't really understand the positions of politicians and continually vote against their own best interests. The corporate ass-kisser really couldn't care less about "the poor," because they don't have lobbyists greasing her greedy palm. The Clintons after all put through "welfare reform" that made the poor even more vulnerable to economic hardship. But I'm sure she was able to smooth-tongue her way through that.

But other than that, see #19 and #28.

The part about Oregon not being any "bluer" than West Virginia. While it is true that Oregon, outside of Portland, is much more conservative than most people realize, Portland proper is probably, outside of San Francisco, the most liberal major city in the US.

Although I recognize that hasn't always been the case.

There's not even a republican bothering to run in my state congressional district and there are three great candidates running on the democratic side.

The Portland model progressivism has been germinating for a long time and its origins were not at odds with the notion of Oregon being a defiantly upper-middle class, exclusively white state back in the 1920s. Portland is proud of its "progressive" history dating back to that era so it's worth noting how the meaning of the term has changed over the years and asking if shiny brick sidewalks and free drinking fountains make up for the lack of affordable housing, racial and cultural diversity, ability to convince anyone outside the city limits to do anything about the continued rape and pillage of Oregon's natural resources, or working class job base. At least Portland used to be proudly economically diverse. Remove that and you have a California-style enclave for "cultural creative" folks, many of whom are not comfortable living in a more racially diverse, working class area, or they would vote more conservative in reaction to competition with people they dislike (as you see in Philadelphia).

US Representative Peter DeFazio is running unopposed for re-election.

Why throw away money to try to defeat him?

From the other side of the DeFazio footbridge.

:toast:

is incredibly simplistic, and anyone who characterizes them that way is either trying to dumb things down for an audience they don't respect much, or just doesn't understand the American political landscape at all.

amke stuff up out of whole cloth to fit your ironclad beliefs. Not everything, mind you, but enough so that the point you're trying to make is discredited. Your OP is filled with facts that have no bearing on your argument. That 70 years ago, Oregon was home to some KKK chapters has little to do with where Oregon is now.

like Tigard. It is really no different than any other gentrified, stratified US city. I compare it to Zurich in the success they have had at "cleaning up" the downtown and removing any sign of economically lower-to-middle influence.

In Portland, ask a middle-class liberal ex-hippie family and they will tell you: don't go to Kenilworth Ave. area it is "the ghetto". It is 30% black..!

California progressives with their pastel rockcrete siding, drive-in banks and drive-thru java joints,
no doubt installed to honor the Pacific Northwest coffee culture.

New Orleans has drive-thru daiquiri bars. I guess the nature of the drive-thru is the only regional character left now that economic and racial integration has been essentially outlawed thanks to local and national housing and industrial policy advocated for by "creative class" neoliberals.

Californian progressives aren't as good as other progressives?
I have toured extensively on the east coast, and in California.

California is at least 15 years ahead of the curve on almost many issues that will become important to progressives everywhere else later.

Take food, for example. Or smoking.

Ten years ago, it was still impossible to tour the east coast without having cigarette smoke with your eggs in every restaurant.
Organic produce was barely there. No nitrate free meats.

Everybody sneering at how many veggies we eat! And how weird we are for not wanting smoke with everything. How stupid we are for having noticed that saturated fat has been linked to heart disease.

Things have sure changed since then- to look more like California! Guess there was something of value there. Or has everyone just lost their minds, like the elitist progressive nuts in California?

And, that's just the dietary stuff.

I mean- do you hate salad bars, or what? Or do you think healthy food is elitist? To which I say-pull your head out, dude. If everyone insisted on cheap organic food, the world would be a much better place, in so many ways.

When my east coast progressive bandmates come out here, all they can talk about is our much much much better food.

And I haven't even touched on California's cultural contributions to the country. People in the midwest think we're some kinda cwazy wacky freaks. Then 15 years later, they discover that acupuncture really works! Dang!

When Obama takes Oregon, you can hug a transplanted Californian.

By the way- bashing the creative class is so in step with the fascist mindset. It goes with the foreign and domestic enemies and anti gay, racist, woman hating, "culture war" stuff we always hear from the right. Hitler was, after all, a very frustrated artist.

and poorer than Oregon. There aren't any black areas anywhere in Vermont. And we voted for Obama overwhelmingly in our primary. States are complex, and more than they're sum total of demographic or historical facts.

Every single one of them, when push comes to shove, welcomes rich liberals with open arms and makes unwelcome or violently excludes "competing" ethnic groups from other areas. Then they complain when the rich liberals raise the property taxes, turn the local fishery into a nightclub and make it financially impossible for natives to live there anymore. Then they get pissed off when they notice that the elites buying summer cottages in the area are more ethnically diverse (not because of any deliberate attempt at diversity but because American elites have no real geographical roots so it is an artificial boomtown diversity like that of Deadwood or San Francisco in the 1850-1910.) Then they move to the suburbs of a red state where they feel safe, blaming "eggheads and African Americans" for their problems. They might as well... nobody's going to bring those jobs back or restore any semblance of sustainable economy to their rural towns. It the economy of the late Roman Empire, with rural areas turned into fiefdoms for the fleeing rich, using money plundered from overseas labor.

I am proudly Germano-Celtic in my family background (like Wright is proudly African-American) and proud to live in a community that, for all its faults, is NOT lily-white.

Oh, and most liberal Oregonians I talked to are proud to NOT live in a "typical US city with the problems you have there" which was invariably code for "blacks and other undesirable poor working class people".

There is a dark side to their liberalism which is ironically self-defeating as they kill their own economy by encouraging gentrification from more overtly anti-urban California refugees.

If the rich people moving in were black, eyebrows would be raised to say the least. An African family bought a house in my ultra-liberal town once. Their efforts to turn it into a bed and breakfast were actually raised as an issue, their motivations questioned. A black person would feel comfortable in Burlington, I hope. He or she would not feel comfortable in Tigard.

"Oh, and most liberal Oregonians I talked to are proud to NOT live in a "typical US city with the problems you have there" which was invariably code for "blacks and other undesirable poor working class people". "

WTF? You attended school in Portland and now think you have your finger on the pulse? You must have some long arms seeing that you live 3200 miles away. You dont know a thing about Oregon.

Tigard isnt safe for people of color? Do me a favor, stay on the East Coast and keep your stupidity to yourself.

That Oregon's lily-white reputation is not a good thing in and of itself.

Care to explain why every single Oregonian I met or talked to considered Kenilworth Ave. "the ghetto"?

How many blacks live in Tigard or Tualatin, exactly?

Or let's go upscale and look at the allegedly creative and inclusive "latte liberals" in... How bout, oh, I dunno, Council Crest? Lake Oswego? Eastmoreland? Come on, it's a DIVERSE MODERN METROPOLIS right?

Only "without all the problems of other cities, I don't know how you can live in a city like DC with all those problems" so I hear!

Sure there are a lot of people who don't think that way. They benefit from not having to argue with those that do, because there is no ethnic diversity to speak of.

(and gentrification is taking care of the residual economic diversity, and progressives are counting on gentrification to conveniently displace the residual angry rednecks and not just problematic pockets of urban poverty.)

"Care to explain why every single Oregonian I met or talked to considered Kenilworth Ave. "the ghetto"?"
Uh, because you never left Portland?
Uh, you only met three lily white and scared Oregonians?
Where did you go to school?

Portland does not have a ghetto nor does it have any other 'bad' areas relative to other big cities. Portland does not have one neighborhood I would not walk through at 3 am, not one.



Must be the skinheads and the KKK taking care of business... :sarcasm:

I just gas when the East Coast tries to define the West Coast. Give it up.

You have every right to piss on my town and my state, but I believe the street you're referring to is Killingsworth.

I happened to live there in the 80's and I still live within a mile of it. There were gangsters there then and now, but I don't consider it unsafe, and no one else I know does, either.

That's a pretty broad brush you've got there.

And, I have been to West Virginia; I really liked it there, but it is very different.

And, didn't Sen. Byrd himself used to be a Klan member? Times change. So do people.

I don't see the point of your divisive posts here.

Just When I Thought I Was Out

... they pull me back in."

— The Godfather: Part III

The Financial Times continues to do an outstanding job of ruining my long holiday weekend here in the States by dragging me back into the vexed and contentious issue of banker pay. This morning, they have goaded me into a response by posting a comment left by former economist/Harvard poohbah and current hedge-fund-honcho/commentator-without-portfolio Larry Summers on the FT Economist's Forum, wherein the Fine and Lofty have been debating Martin Wolf's recent provocation on the subject.

While I truly begin to tire of this issue, I feel it would be irresponsible to my Faithful Audience not to share with you the comment I left on the Alphaville blogsite (and Mr. Wolf's subsequent "response"), just in case you wanted to see more of my flashing teeth on the subject. I fear these words will fall on deaf ears among the F&L, but perhaps some among you will be able to perceive the validity of my arguments amidst the vitriol of my delivery.


http://epicureandealmaker.blogspot.com/2008/01/just-when-i-thought-i-was-out.html


man google can find anything lol

of thinking that the OP is intended to truly educate people and correct misconceptions. It's another propaganda piece, pure and simple, a flailing attempt to try to save an all but dead candidacy.

attack to add.

Looking over the replies--many of which seem to be divisive for the sake of being divisive--it occurs to me that were McCamy to post "Eating Baby Brains is Evil!" there would be a few here who would find someway to argue the point.

I think reply no. 1 sums up the attitude of the pro-B0 camp to your well-reasoned and researched post:

'Whatever.'

And the sneering, condescending arrogance of B0's 'bitter' remarks come through in others' responses as well.

There is no rational discussion with these types, and I admire your continued telling of the truths on this site that no longer has too much reason for me to visit it. Your posts, however, are always well worth my time.

"In the Democratic primary, each state senatorial district gets a number of delegates based on how many Democrats cast ballots there in the last two major elections.

For example: Democrats living in State Senate District 7 (which is a heavily Republican area in northwest Harris County) won’t get as much say at the national convention as democrats who live in District 13, which covers central and southwest Houston. District 7 gets three delegates; District 13 has seven.

Democratic Delegates will be awarded proportionally, depending on the overall vote in each state senatorial district. "

http://www.khou.com/news/local/politics/stories/khou080214_tj_howtovote.c2b9b35e.html

"Some states get rewarded with extra delegates for going late in the primary season, others states award delegates to districts very non-proportionally. In California, some districts get far more than their fair share in an odds and evens formula. Again its a reward to a district, they voted blue by an extra % last election, so they get an extra delegate or two this time around. If you play the system right, understanding which local districts are more heavily weighted/biased with delegate allocations, (like going heavily on the “odd-numbered” districts in California)
you can win more delegates."

http://jackman.stanford.edu/blog/?p=726

So if you vote red or have a lot of Republican voters, you do not count as much. Recent history counts, not ancient history. The Democratic primary has this system built in and the candidates are aware of these differences. As far as West Virginia, if the voters are Republicans and vote for the Democrat, that still does not count as much because it is the number of Democratic voters that are counted.

All the rest is hot air and rhetoric.

does not apply to states like West Virginia and Kentucky.

I am flaberghasted that we are conceding these working class, New Deal states to Mr. McCain so early in the process.

Our frontrunner is not even going to set foot in West Virginia??? WTF kind of change is that????

google it.

And I don't have particularly negative views of either state. (Ok, I hear it rains way too much in OR. And I had a former in-law from WV who talked so slowly I could barely understand him. But that's it for my impressions.) Each state will probably vote overwhelming for different candidates. That doesn't mean one of those states is better than the other. Stop making assumptions about the people in both places, and let them all have their voices heard.

I'm from one of the supposedly most liberal states in the country (MA), and we've got racists here. Anyone remember the Boston school busing wars of the 70's? We still see occasional stories on the local news here about people finding racist literature in their mailboxes, and about synogogues, churches and cemetaries being defaced because of ethnic or religious bigotry. No state is immune to rascism, sexism, or any of the other "isms" you can name.

All this said, I'm a middle-class, middle-aged white woman supporting Obama, from a state that voted strongly for Clinton. There goes another stereotype. GOBAMA!

SEE http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Blair_Mountain

BROUGHT TO MY ATTENTION DADDY CYRUS ON A HISTORY CHANNEL PROGRAM

I'll never use that as an insult again.

"The battle was the final act in a series of violent clashes that have also been termed the Redneck War, from the color of bandannas worn by the miners around their necks for friend-or-foe identification, and the likely impetus of the common usage of the original Scottish term redneck in the vernacular of the United States."

And

"The National Covenant and The Solemn League and Covenant (a.k.a. Covenanters) signed documents stating that Scotland desired a Presbyterian Church government, and rejected the Church of England as their official church (no Anglican congregation was ever accepted as the official church in Scotland). What the Covenanters rejected was episcopacy — rule by bishops — the preferred form of church government in England. Many of the Covenanters signed these documents using their own blood, and many in the movement began wearing red pieces of cloth around their neck to signify their position to the public."

Both from Wiki.

I'm generalizing, but it boils down to the western part of the state is liberal the eastern part much more conservative. King co. (Seattle) and Multnomah Co. (Portland) are among the most progressive areas in the country. To try and suggest Ore. is somehow on a par with an Appalachian state like WV because of a couple KKK chapters is ludicrous.

If all you say is true, why isn't Hillary's appeal to racists working in Oregon?

and have already written elsewhere on our KKK past - it is unbelievable stuff, for sure. Actually, we went after a lot of other people too. I'd add that we no longer have a booming economy; in fact, things are getting a bit scary here. I've lived here all my life, on the "liberal" side and the "conservative" side, as people like to split them up, and I can't say that I'd call Oregon a progressive state. Never thought that at allwhen I was a kid - we seemed pretty backwards to me then.

I don't think people in Oregon give much of a rip about black vs. white anymore (except for small enclaves of small minded people here and there - I've definitely run into them, and it is so not pretty); certainly not a voting issue - in other words, a candidate who comes and tries to get votes based on the fact she is "white like us" is going to have a deaf ear turned to her. And not necessarily because of "enlightenment", but more because Oregonians are fairly quick to say fuck you to panderers if they catch them in the act. More likely that is what is happening to her campaign here. If I see anything at all, it is white/black/asian vs. latino, but even that isn't as much of a fight here as elsewhere.

I don't know a ton a about West Virginia, except what I've heard from the Hillary campaign, who claim that state is filled with a certain type of people who will vote only for a certain type of candidate, which she claims to be. Oh, and my dh lived there briefly when he was a kid - liked it.

I am not entirely sure why people keep insisting that Oregonians wishing to bring Obama a victory equates into being "enlightened" - saw that in another thread I was in, too. Not sure where the misplaced anger on that comes from exactly. Who cares about enlightenment or who is/isn't that way? It is issues (of which basic character is one also).

Bob Novak says Oregon leans toward Obama because we have a large hippy population. That is about as accurate as this posting actually.
West Virginia I know almost nothing about. Comparing Oregon to California is something I excell at however. California is supposed to be the Bluest of Blue states. GOP second term govenor, during my years in CA we had Pete Wilson xenophobe delux, Reagan. The fact is that in my own memory, going back to 1968 elections, CA has gone to the Republican in the General 6 out of 10 times, including 1988. Since then CA has voted Democratic in the Presidential election. Oregon has gone Democratic since 1988, giving it 5 out of 10 General Elections. So California, with all of its reputation for being Blue, is actually only so so. West Virginia, in those same elections went to Democrats 6 times and Republicans 4 times. Using the elections since 68, WV is the Bluest, Oregon second and CA is number 3.
Recent polls show both of our candidates beating McCain here in Oregon by small margins, with Clinton actually polling slightly better. WV is leaning GOP this year. CA is leaning Democratic, but only leaning, not promising.
Funny is it not? CA going to Republicans more often than WV? It is a fact. What does it mean? Who knows, but this I know: no state is safely Blue, no State has the market cornered on Democratic wins. I say look to your own state, whatever that state may be and deliver it to the Democrat, whoever that Democrat may be. This year and every year.

...just to say "Oregon is no 'bluer' a state than West Virginia. If anything, it is a red state that has recently begun to switch to blue."

McCamy Taylor's posts have become virtually unreadable.

I lived in WV and practiced law there for twenty-five years. West Virginia has traditionally been democratic but the reason WV went for Bush in the Bush/Gore race was simply because Gore was against guns. You cannot win WV if you talk about taking away people's guns. WV doesn't mind liberals, though. As an example, until about five years ago, WV had one of the most liberal supreme courts in the US. WV does, however, have a significant racist segment of the population. It is not impossible for an african american to win an election, but it is extremely unlikely in an election that wil, draw popular votes from a wide spectrum of the state's population, such as in a presidential election. Obama is smart to let WV go and to put his efforts on states with more delegates and electoral votes.

The closest I can come in my memory banks are some long ago highschool Pep Rallies where "My school was better than your school".

There are NO Blue States.
There are NO Red States.
There are only Purple States.
Some are a darker shade of Purple than others.

Some states have a system of laws that are more progressive than others. Some states need more work.
All states have a fair share of natural beauty, and good people live in all states.


I have recently moved from the Bluest part of a "Blue" State to the Reddest part of a "Red" State (Minneapolis to Central Arkansas).
I loved living in Minnaepolis. There were good people there.
I love living in Arkansas. There are good people here.

There is active Racism in every state.
There is bigotry in every state.
There is political corruption and cronism in every state.
There is cultural injustice in every stste.
There is Religious intolerance in every state.
There is ignorance in every state.
There is poverty in every state.

I opposed those things in Minnesota.
I oppose those things in Arkansas.
Nothing changed because I crossed some artificial line that exists only on maps.

I just don't get it....My state is Bluer than your state, and therefore I am better than you? :shrug:


It is easier to be Blue in a Blue State.
You simply go with the crowd.
That is nothing to take pride in.

"All I really want to know is,
Are you kind?"----Jerry Garcia, The Grateful Dead


"There are forces within the Democratic Party who want us to sound like kinder, gentler Republicans. I want us to compete for that great mass of voters that want a party that will stand up for working Americans, family farmers, and people who haven't felt the benefits of the economic upturn."---Paul Wellstone

It's a very nice sentiment, but I'm not ready to throw out the science of demographics for a sentimental view about the same good guys and bad guys being in every state. It isn't that simple. Go to the northern panhandle of West Virginia, for instance. Live there for awhile and you will see that there are certain characteristics that you won't find in too many other areas. Cross the Ohio river to the Buckeye state, a stone's throw from the northern panhandle of West Virginia and you will find people who have attitudes and values that are radically different. Any good jury selection expert or trial lawyer has to understand something about the real differences between differently situated collectivities of people. Do you really think that people living far inland, for instance, are as open to new ideas as those who exist in ports of international commerce? It is a very interesting subject.

It is a complex state, where any blanket statements will be at least half false, probably the same as most states.

Portland is a region in itself, a large international Pacific Rim city where you might here and see any language in the world in street conversations, and people from everywhere. Its not quite of the status of Seattle or San Francisco, but it is of sufficient size to outweigh in votes the whole rest of the state, most of the time.

South of Portland along the Cascade Mountains and the I-5 North-South corridor is a string of smaller but generally prosperous cities, where the land is beautiful, the climate is excellent, and the people are most characteristically "Oregonians". Which is a complex idea in itself...on the west coast Oregonians have a reputation for independence, innovation, liberal thought, self-sufficiency, and a tendency to enjoy life. I suppose this is the "hippy" aspect, though I am not sure whether that word has any remaining meaning.

East of the Cascades (where I live) it is a whole different story...it is the high desert of the Great Basin where populations are small, weather is hard and agriculture is often a struggle. Most communities date back to the days of the Oregon Trail and have many descendants of original settlers among their numbers. Interests are agriculture, farming and fishing, and native rights. Politically this whole region leans to the right and resents being outweighed by the numbers of Portland. Living here I am never sure myself where anyone might stand on any issue, but the arguments are very lively.

Not to hijack the intent of the OP, but in case anyone was interested....

decades, but I spend time in Portland, out on the Coast, over in Bend and down in the Rogue Valley every year. I will return to Oregon in the next few years, if for no other reason than to establish residency in case I need to take advantage of the Death With Dignity Act :-). There's one no other state in the union has been able to make stick!

You've done a nice job of capturing the disparity between the parts of the state and the political cultures. The OP got her ideas from some sort of web search overview; your explanation gives a much clearer picture.

I'm a lifelong Oregonian and I agree.

And I grew up in rural Western Oregon...very different from Portland or Eugene, as is Eastern Oregon. I love the dry side, I hope to live there some day.

I've lived in Portland, Vale (bordering Idaho), and Prineville (cowboy central in the middle of Oregon). My parents are in a small town about 30 minutes outside of Salem. I'm related to about half the population of Vernonia (tiny ex-logging town halfway between Portland and the coast. You'll see it on the map if you watch that new show "Ax-Men"). I've got friends and relatives up and down the Willamette valley.

The OP doesn't know crap about Oregon, Oregonians, or the current political make-up of the state. They have as much credibility as Hillary when she said that Oregon was "Birkenstock country". :eyes: Doesn't she realize that wearing sandals in Oregon just makes your feet rot because of all the rain?

Oh yeah, here's another fun fact. In Oregon last year, 453 people fell off their bicycles - and drowned.

Thank you for your thoughtful analysis. I don't always agree with everything you write, but appreciate your perspective. The idea of the Clintons as racists has never rung true to me. If anything I see their supposed racist actions as counter productive to their interests, thus highly unlikely. I see portraying them as racists as serving someone elses interests.

IMO, we need the best candidate we can offer to the American people, according to the rules of the party.

If the super delegates feel it is Obama, I'll vote for him. I happen to think it is Clinton and hope they swing for her.

I have no vested interest in having a woman or AA for president. I don't care if women or AA's are disappointed in who is chosen. We need the best candidate and that is the candidate who can win and help more democratic representatives and senators get elected.

even think Hillary would in any way engage in race-baiting. as you say--it is against her interests.


......The idea of the Clintons as racists has never rung true to me. If anything I see their supposed racist actions as counter productive to their interests, thus highly unlikely. I see portraying them as racists as serving someone elses interests.

After Tonya Harding, Bob Packwood, and this lousy spring we've had, LET US HAVE OUR DAY IN THE SUN!

The "wonderfulness" of Oregon you hear about is directly related to the fact that there seems to be a pretty decent group of Oregonians here on DU. Just like other states whose time to shine in this process has come (especially when it virtually never has), we wave and smile and announce how proud we are that our state is supporting our nominee. We're a little extra proud because our GE delegates have not gone to Bush, but are fully aware the ours is no more perfect a state than any other.

And as a point of correction, the street you're going on about is NOT Kenilworth, it's Killingsworth.

Of our Congressional delegation, four out of five are Democrats. The one Repub. (Walden) is from the rural Eastern Oregon district.

In any case, none of this changes the fact that Hillary will NOT be the nominee.

who is volunteering for Obama on tuesday, let me just say your post is condescending and meaningless. WV is leaning toward Clinton because people here really liked Bill, and see Hillary as a continuation of a Clinton presidency after an 8 year descent into hell. Clinton's lead here is not an indication of racism sexism or any other ism.

WV went for Bush by a slim margin in 2000 because of God Guns and Gays like most states that fell for the conservative christian crapola. Historically WV is a democratic state because the democratic party supports the working class. WV will support the democratic party in this election, whichever candidate has the nomination. These days, I see more "Kick the son-of-a-Bush out" bumperstickers than I see W04 ones. By a huge margin. West Virginians may not be particularly well-educated, but they aren't stupid, not any more than people anywhere are.

And from Oregon, let me just say that I have never heard a single person, whether related to the campaign or in any other role, say a single bad word about West Virginia. That's what gets me about the OP...maybe people on the GDP have said things I didn't catch, but I doubt that they were people from either state.

Glad to here there's no war against Oregon over there; there certainly isn't any war against West Virginia going on here.

I check in for a second, and I find out there's a junior-high style rivalry between West Virginians and Oregonians. Who knew?

:crazy:

of the vote on top of Al Gore's win.

That 5.5% was a direct to all of the right wing enabling of the Clinton era.

One of MANY things you might want to think about a little deeper about, before pigeonholing the state.

The actual information was fascinating, some of it I knew but much of it was new to me, thanks for that.

The chances of losing this fall aren't huge. Polling consistently shows that Obama would easily beat McCain and Clinton would have to fight a bit harder but could do it if she ran a decent campaign (which is, admittedly, dubious since her primary campaign has been dire). Granted, that's assuming the votes are honestly counted.

I am an Obama supporter here in WV, but I have been sorely disappointed in some of the messages posted at DU by many of the people who also support my candidate. Its sad to see so many stereotypes used against a mostly poor, exploited people just because they supposedly won't vote a certain way.

- are concerned. For example: (and other comments upthread, too)

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x5933455#5936278

This insulting attitude towards WV is unacceptable in a SUPPOSED Democratic supporter.

:kick: