It seems as though Barack’s problem with rural and sometimes blue-collar voters isn’t going away. McClatchy has an interesting article up on the subject with some great lines from Dem voters who say they will never, ever vote for Obama in a general election:

 Lou Meyer, a housewife in Sellersburg, had similar thoughts. “He won’t wear a flag pin. Anyone who can’t stand up for their country, I won’t vote for,” she said. “If it’s Obama versus McCain, I’m between a rock and a hard place, but I’m not going to vote for Obama.”

…

Dennis Whetsell, a Brownsburg accountant, voiced other concerns: “Obama doesn’t have experience. McCain could work much better with Congress.”

…

“I’d like to get the troops home as quickly as we can,” said Whetsell, “but we also can’t allow the area to fall into the hands of Iran or Syria.” McCain, he said, understands all the nuances.

…

AND they like McCain!

“He’s honest. He’s not afraid to look you in the eye and tell you what he thinks,” said Cheryl Pauley, a Brownsburg housewife. “Obama is a yes man.”

Awesome news!

And some facts to back it all up:

The Pew poll showed that 23 percent of self-described conservative and moderate Democrats say they’d vote for McCain over Obama in November. If Clinton’s the nominee, that number drops to 14 percent.

Check out the primary coverage from IN on Election Journal. They have same great footage of grassroots primary action and more importantly coverage of primary voter fraud.

Barack Obama on negative campaigning at 12:33 PM ET Today:

“We have been consistent in this campaign in talking about the issues. Trying to have a different kind of politics. … In fact, I’ve been adamant to say we can’t run that kind of campaign. It’s contrary to our message. And I think it would actually erode support for me, in addition to not solving the problem the American people need solved.”  (CNN interview)

Barack Obama’s distorted, negative attack at 1:02 PM ET Today:

Repeated a distorted, negative attack on Senator McCain’s economic record that ABC News called an example of how to “twist the knife” and Chicago Tribune said was “only partially quoted”.

As we all turn on the TV tonight and it refresh on the election results online (ok, maybe that’s only me), let’s not overlook some important exit poll numbers:

Still petulant: more than 60% of Clinton voters say they wouldn’t be happy if Obama were the nominee; about half of Obama voters say the same. 25% of Clinton supporters say they’d vote for McCain in the general election; 17% of Obama supporters say they’d vote for McCain in the general election.

Courtesy of Marc Ambinder.

Not really sure what to call them, but I’m referring to the swath of voters (GOP, Dem, and Indies) who pulled the lever for our team in 2004, switched to the Dems in 2006, and are again free-agents in the constantly evolving draft of voters that is American politics.

The bottom line is that these folks are coming back in droves to John McCain because they recognize his strong integrity and tremendous leadership skills are what our country needs during a time of war and economic uncertainty. So says the AP, who has been tracking the opinions of 2,000 of these voters for quite some time now.

Soren Dayton over at RedState.com has a great wrap-up of the progress.

…and out of his campaign.

Yes, that’s right - the campaign of the youth, where college/youth voters find their home, about which young voters are just so excited…just isn’t so excited about them.

You see, the Obama campaign doesn’t trust their youth supporters (even some of youth leaders) to exercise their voting rights when the going gets tough and they are striping them of the right to vote at the Democratic National Convention.

The hilarity (did I intend the pun - you will never know) of this disenfranchisement knows no bounds, and the irony can be measured only by the metric ton, but the truth stings. Even some liberals are up in arms about this one as the Obama campaign - champion of the youth, remember - has lied to its youth supporters. From FutureMajority.com:

…perhaps most importantly, the Obama campaign made promises to a number of youth leaders that the right of refusal would not be exercised against young supporters.

A brief explanation:

Young people running for delegate positions on behalf of their candidate at the Democratic National Convention in California were informed earlier this week that they had been cut from the process. This happened within both the Clinton and Obama campaigns, but the issue became particularly focused on the actions of the Obama campaign, which cut far more potential delegates and which relied heavily on young voters to secure victory in the primary contests held thus far.

This is apparently happening in more than just California and is affecting even some of the leadership in the Democratic youth movement as Young Democrats of America Southwest Regional Director Kevin Bondelli was one of the delegates purged from the campaign.

No wonder Obama thinks all voters are so bitter - when your campaign is constantly kicking them in the face, they must look pretty pissed.  Et tu Barack?

Today in Ohio President Bush laid out some hard truth for the Democrats and anyone else pushing for retreat in Iraq - it’s a dumb idea. Referencing comments made by Democratic Sen. Ron Wyden of Oregon, President Bush said:

“When it takes time for Iraqis to reach agreement, it is not foot-dragging, as one senator described it during Congress’ two-week Easter recess. It is a revolutionary undertaking that requires great courage.”

He also pointed out that the Iraqi accomplished a feat that our Congress often finds quite trying - passing a budget.

Of course, a great deal of political progress has been made in Iraq recently, but the Democrats are “staying the course” in their calls for an immediate and ill-advised retreat claiming they know better than the president, the military, and the intelligence community where the real terrorist threat is coming from - yet-to-be-constructed and entirely secure American military bases surrounding Iraq. At least, that’s where they’d like to relocate our troops - away from killing terrorists and onto bases in already secured areas. Surely a winning strategy.

Meanwhile, President Bush has this question for them,

“If America’s strategic interests are not in Iraq, the convergence point for the twin threats of al-Qaida and Iran, the nation Osama bin Laden’s deputy has called the place for the greatest battle, the country at the heart of the most volatile region on earth, then where are they?”

Good question! He also succinctly summed up the positions of Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton on Iraq:

“No matter what shortcomings these critics diagnose, their prescription is always the same: retreat,” Bush said.

Maybe Nancy Pelosi, Barack, and Sen. Clinton had better leave the War on Terror to the people that want to win…

…also, Barack Obama and Senator Hillary Clinton do not seem to get it.

By “get it” I mean national security. The public seems, however, to be more in line with reality and, coincidently, so does John McCain. Overwhelmingly in a new survey conducted by Gallup, the American public (let’s call them “voters”) agree with John McCain (and again, reality) when they say how we should deal with the situation in Iraq.

That is, voters want the US and our next president to behave responsibly and in the best interests of America:

 It gets worse for Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama. Nearly two out of every three Americans surveyed (65%) believe “the United States has an obligation to establish a reasonable level of stability and security in Iraq before withdrawing all of its troops.” The reason is self-interest. Almost the same number of Americans (63%) believe al Qaeda “would be more likely to use Iraq as a base for its terrorist operations” if the U.S. withdraws.

Mr. Rove goes on to layout how the Dems have painted themselves into a corner of both political and foreign policy lunacy and describes how it will be perilous to their campaigns in November.

Elections are rarely decided over just one issue; to win, candidates don’t need to have a majority of Americans agreeing with them on every big issue. But when it comes to choosing a president, Americans take seriously the candidates’ views and experience on national security. Voters instinctively understand a president’s principal constitutional responsibility is protecting the country.

The Democrats have two candidates with less national security experience and fewer credentials than the presumptive Republican nominee, Sen. John McCain. And they are compounding these difficulties with positions on Iraq and terrorist surveillance that are shared by a shrinking minority of Americans.