Obama's Contemptuous Quest for Ohio and Pennsylvania

Barack Obama, who allegedly wants so much to change the map, to overcome our differences, to soothe our tensions, sure has a funny way of showing it.

Yesterday, Newsbusters uncovered a tape of Obama discussing coal-fired plants with the San Francisco Chronicle. Safely seated at the reclaimed wood table of the Chronicle editorial board, Obama felt free to remark without remorse or hesitance about his desire to bankrupt the coal industry to serve the environmentalist cause:

"If somebody wants to build a coal power plant they can, it's just that it will bankrupt them because they are going to be charged a huge sum for all that greenhouse gas that's being emitted," Barack Obama said to the San Francisco Chronicle in January.

Now, ever since 2000, Democrats have been tsk-tsking blue-collar Republicans for voting "against their interests." Thomas Frank's best-selling "Why Won't You Vote For Us, You Ignorant, Flat-Land Kansan Rubes?" "What's the Matter With Kansas?" was the embodiment of this blame-the-voter-first theory of electoral politics. Michelle Obama's long-delayed pride in her country and Barack's belief in its redemption at the moment of his win in Iowa are the culmination of this theory. Because white, blue-collar workers are now voting for effete liberals, America ain't so bad after all. But woe betide the blue-collar areas that decide to turn on the Obamas in the closing hours of this election.

If areas of southeastern Ohio, Western Pennsylvania, and other rural areas end up, by some chance, costing Obama the presidency, the blame will be placed squarely on them and not the candidate who failed to woo them. Liberal pundits and mainstream media (such that a distinction exists) will immediately blame the intractable racism of white Americans for Obama's loss.

But in voting for Obama, wouldn't these blue-collar workers in the coal regions of our country be, ahem, "voting against their interests?" Joe Biden first made it clear that he wanted no coal plants in America, caught in an impromptu Q&A on a rope line back in September. Obama quickly assured everyone that he's not anti-coal-"Just look at my website!"- but his Chronicle comments reveal the cold indifference with which he views the economic livelihood of thousands of Ohioans and Pennsylvanians.

In order to turn Ohio blue, as Obama wishes to do, he would need to increase urban turn-out, which is probable, while retaining Kerry's wins in a handful of southern and eastern counties. One of those counties is Belmont County, which went for Kerry 52-46 percent. Another is Athens, which went for Kerry 63-36 percent; Jefferson, 52-47 for Kerry; Mahonig, 62-36 for Kerry; Stark, 50-48 for Kerry. The raw number margins in those counties were not huge, with most of Kerry's payload coming in Cuyahoga and surrounding counties, but it would seem Obama would need to retain most of those margins to flip the state.

Unfortunately for Obama, Belmont is the highest coal-producing county in the state. Athens, Jefferson, Mahonig and Stark are also home to some of Ohio's 3,000 mining jobs and an estimated 11 coal industry spin-off jobs that each of the mining jobs represents. Now, wouldn't voting for Obama be decidedly against these people's interests?

The same goes for Pennsylvania, where the state's culture, history, and economy have long been dependent on the coal industry. From the mirrored black luster of Scranton's anthracite in the east to the dark dust of the west's bituminous mines, folks will not take kindly to Obama's blithe talk of bankruptcy. He will undoubtedly increase turn-out in Philadelphia, but will he hold on to coal-region counties Luzerne, Beaver, Fayette, Washington, and Allegheny?

Particularly in the case of Pennsylvania, there are now about five Democrat-issued warnings or insults that could entice blue-collar voters in these formerly blue counties to vote Republican without ever having to resort to race.