The West Virginia Effect: Clinton vs. Obama

Let me say first of all that I support Hillary Clinton for a number of reasons that make my wife uncomfortable. (a. She's a powerful woman who -- once she gets the bit in her teeth -- is determined to take you on a ride you won't forget; b. She has no compunctions about doing what needs to be done, regardless of what anyone else says; and c. She works her tail off for reasons that have more to do with long-term principles using short-term brute force, can-opener tactics.) In a few words, Senator Clinton is a rough-and-tumble Tomboy who was "brung up right!" And she's proud of it too!

Obama is a great guy. But when it comes to politics in Washington, I'd rather stick with the Tomboy who knows how to poke and jab and trip with the best of them.

Okay! So that's my personal preference in the Democratic candidates, and true to form, Senator Clinton has gone to the mat once more. The news organizations say it makes no difference; that the American people are tired of all this; that Obama has the momentum and the delegates and, by golly, he'll be the nominee.

But the people of West Virgina beg to disagree (thank you, kindly) and they said it in a big way yesterday. Does it mean anything? Has the Democratic race become a blood sport that they were just aching to see? What, exactly, was the message coming out of West Virginia?

My take is that it's heartland values versus intellectual allure, and I think it's something that I hope Democratic Party takes into account at the convention. Heartland values is more than stuff that's listed on a resume' . It's grit! And these voters saw it and felt it in Senator Clinton, and didn't even catch a whiff of it in Senator Obama.

And, to my eyes, this looks like real trouble for the Democratic Party if they can't keep Clinton somehow involved in the final race for the real contest in November. These voters heard Clinton and she was talking on their wave-length -- down and dirty, committed, common sense, old-style politics.

Now some folks like those kind of politics, and some like the inspirational kind. Kerry tried to be inspirational in the last Presidential contest, and he was dragged through the mud, branded as a snob, by these same kind of voters.

Clinton, by comparison, doesn't seem to inspire the folks from the big cities; doesn't seem to work the crowds into the same kind of spiritual elation, and often doesn't even give people a warm and fuzzy feeling when they hear her. Instead, she's a fighter, and that's what some folks really want. Compromise? Hell no! Fisticuffs is more her campaigning style.

To paraphrase then the West Virginia Effect: "I don't like her; I may not agree with her; and I damn well don't want to be her neighbor or drinking buddy! But by golly, she's got guts and I'm gonna vote for the old gal! I know she'll do me proud in the end, win or lose!"

And that's the West Virginia effect the Democratic Party had better look out for, because after Kerry's campaign walked away from the last election, licking its wounds and whining about Ohio, the Democratic Party was left with a traffic accident. And the backbone of Democratic voters saw it, and remembered the previous election that was also a traffic accident, and a lot of them are saying "Never again!" If they don't see some real gumption in this year's nominee, they're not going to back a loser -- no matter how much they like his or her demeanor, policies, or pedigree.

They'll go for whoever shows the scar tissue, the bruises, and the courage to stand up for their values against the stuffed shirts in Washington.

Bill Clinton knows this. Hillary Clinton nows this. And all Barack Obama seems to know is the delegate count.