Barack Obama had better hope the superdelegates didn’t pay attention to tonight’s Pennsylvania primary. He’d better hope they don’t check the map in western and rural Pennsylvania, where he got thoroughly thrashed. This county-by-county map tells the tale of how thoroughly Obama got thrashed.

Of the 68 counties in Pennsylvania, Hillary won 23 counties with 55-65% of the vote and 29 more counties with 65-75% of the vote. Fayette County went Hillary with 79%. Sen. Obama won only 7 counties, with Philadelphia being his best county with 65% of the vote.

The only logical conclusion we can draw from that is that Sen. Obama’s statement at the San Fransisco fundraiser hurt him badly. That said, the Chicago Sun-Times’ Mary Mitchell complains that the Clintons counted on racism to win:

Clinton banked on the strength of Gov. Ed Rendell’s observation that conservative white voters in that state would not vote for a black man. I traveled across Pennsylvania with the Obama bus tour, and tens of thousands of white men and women turned out at his rallies.

But early on, Rendell boasted that the discomfort of white voters with a black candidate may have accounted for 5 percent of the votes he racked up against Lynn Swann, a popular former NFL player, in that state’s gubernatorial race.

Obviously, there are people in this country who are not yet ready to see a black man elected as president, just as there are people who aren’t ready to call a female commander in chief.

Still, it is appalling that any candidate in the Democratic Party, the party that has benefitted from the blind loyalty of black voters, would stoop to exploiting bigotry in order to win the election.

That’s a bit over-the-top. It’s a stretch to say that Clinton exploited that division. It’d be one thing if she had played racial politics or if she’d played the racebaiting game like Pastor J-Wright did during his tenure at Sen. Obama’s church.

Mostly, she won because blue collar Democrats can’t identify with an elitist like Sen. Obama. Those are voters that Sen. Obama has traditionally had difficulty winning over. I don’t see a reason why they won’t continue being a problem for him. These are voters that Sen. McCain has a real shot at.

Don’t misunderstand me. I still find it difficult to picture Hillary winning the nomination. After tonight, though, I find it more difficult picturing Sen. Obama winning over blue collar voters in sufficient numbers to win in November.

Let’s also remember that Sen. Obama outspent Hillary by a 2:1 margin. At minimum, a candidate with that type of spending advantage should win. To lose even though you outspent your opponent is inexcusable. To lose badly when outspending your opponent that badly is a collapse on a par with last year’s Mets.

It’s times like these that I wish I was the Tums distributor for DNC Headquarters.

Technorati Tags: Hillary, Pennsylvania, Obama, Reagan Democrats, Elitism, Racism, Election 2008

Cross-posted at LetFreedomRingBlog

1. I watched this on English news last night and enjoyed the dilemma of the reporters as they didn’t know how to report the issue…support the woman or the monority?….such fun!

   Comment by thud — April 23, 2008 @ 3:18 am

2. Have you ever heard of the Induced Infant Liability Act?

   Comment by Michael Ejercito — April 23, 2008 @ 11:49 am

3. Awesome!

   And, it looked like McCain came in with a higher percentage than Hillary in all counties save for 5 or so!

   Comment by NW Chris — April 23, 2008 @ 12:16 pm

4. After tonight, though, I find it more difficult picturing Sen. Obama winning over blue collar voters in sufficient numbers to win in November.

   Pennsylvania’s voters lean pro-life.

   If the people of Pennsylvania were aware of Senator Obama’s record in the Illinois Senate, he can write off Pennsylvania.

   Comment by Michael Ejercito — April 23, 2008 @ 5:49 pm

5. If McCain comes in higher than Hillary, then Obama losing Pennsylvania isn’t that big of a loss, since that state will vote red anyway.

   Comment by Liem — April 23, 2008 @ 9:11 pm