No, West Virgina doesn't make Clinton's case that she's more electable. It was a Democratic primary. Oddly enough, the winner was bound to be a Democrat. McCain won blue states and purple states back when the Republican race was competitive. Think he's going to win them in November? You can't extrapolate much from primaries to the general election. Some things, sure: the much bigger Democratic turnout and new registrations meant something when both parties were competitive, though with the Republicans settled, that doesn't apply anymore. The greater success at fundraising means something. The campaign infrastructure Obama has built for so many primaries starts him way ahead of where Gore and Kerry were. As far as trying to read results and extrapolate from those however, no. Primary voters and caucus attendees are a subset of voters, and don't predict how the rest of the voters will vote.

I'm suspicious that the coal industry needs a "clean coal" marketing campaign. What are they asking for in the commercials? If they're pretending coal is already clean that's obviously a lie. However, no one knows if any clean coal technology will work, anymore than we know if solar will work. Every energy source has technical challenges, malign side effects, and uncertainly about who well it will ever work. That's why nothing can be written off at this point. Even nuclear can be considered if they solve the problem of hardening plants against crashing airplanes (there's one where I'm a wee bit skeptical). In the meantime, we have to accept somethings about coal. Coal plants are incredibly common already. The dirty technology is proven and cheap. Coal is common and cheap. Poor countries in urgent need of power are going to build coal plants no matter how filthy they are. If someone could come up with affordable and feasible clean coal, they could sell the technology all over the planet. If we do the research, it could be us. It could have been us that built wind technology instead Denmark, and instead McCain made his climate change speech at a Danish wind turbine plant rather than an American one --- because there aren't American ones. Of course, he voted consistently against research into alternative technologies. Let's not do that with any technology yet.

When Pres. Johnson signed the Voting Rights Act, he was supposed to have said of the Democrats, "We have lost the South for a generation." It's more like two and counting, and the long-term implication of politically risky moves is why gay marriage looks so scary electorally. However, as Greenwald pointed out, the October 2006 New Jersey court decision didn't doom the Democrats in 2006. My theory is that the difference is between whether these big changes happen at a state level or national level. A national legalization of gay marriage would be incredibly risky politically, but not a state level change. It could have repercussions in California. However, I also suspect gay marriage isn't nearly the challenge to ingrained bigotry that racial equality was. It's a gut level to be sure, and homophobia is as strong as racism in bigoted individuals, but life isn't organized around keeping homosexuals down in the way the South was organized around race. Though I"m glad this happened in May instead of October, I don't think it's going to hurt.

Regardless, I'd rather be on the side that's trying to expand rights instead of restricting them.

There's no need to wish Kennedy's tumor on another politician. You have to know that's the one comment that will be come a story on Fox News. Let's just concern ourselves with the honors due to Kennedy. He's one of the few politicians who can accept his high-level medical care with a clean conscience for having tried to get it for the rest of us.

OK, I'll tell you, it's not a bad sign. It's not a good sign either, but candidates who have won their party's nomination don't win all the late primaries. You need to look at the trend. Clearly Obama has an Appalachia problem. Just as clearly he needs to address it, if not for himself then for the races down the ballot. However, that doesn't doom him. For all th chatter about him being unable to win rural votes, he's beaten Clinton in lots of rural areas. No, those areas weren't Appalachia, but that's the point: rural areas are hardly uniform beyond lack of density. In the general election, Obama's Appalachia problem can be matched by McCain's New England problem. Plenty of New England is rural, but do you want to run there as a Republican?

So, no need to panic, but I do admonish fellow Democrats/liberals to resist the temptation to make fun of voters and areas we aren't winning. When Republicans make fun of us city folk as effete snobs or whatever the pejorative of the day is, do we flock to vote for them? Look at how House Republicans refer to people in artistic and college towns, and tell me they can hope to pick up votes there (page 10): http://www.politico.com/static/PPM43_080514_nrcc_memo.html

Maybe that helps explain why here in the upper Midwest, the House Republicans are nearly reduced to just a suburban party.