We haven't really heard much about rural issues from either campaign yet, have we? It might be interesting to have a debate focused on rural issues. That is, if Obama is willing to speak to millions of Americans will watch such a debate.

Does anyone else find it really arrogant of Obama to run for President after 1 year in the Senate? He thinks he knows what is best for our country because ????? Was he born with this great knowledge?

It takes time to learn what is best for our country, time and experience.

Hillary 2008

It appears that Obama finally has been "undressed". We now know that he's a liberal elitist.

Time to hang up the empty suit... it's over.

Brian? Sorry to inform you, the POLLS have NOT been RIGHT once, to date.

Your statement that "the polls are always right" is what has caused Obama and his campaign to skid!
THEY follow the polls and believe in them. They fine-tune their campaign based on what the "polls tell them".

While dividing Oregonians is sound politics, this ongoing divisiveness of the Clinton campaign is sickening. I call on fellow Oregonians not to let them capitalize on regional and lifestyle, urban versus rural, division.

Just to add a comment to offset the incorrect statement by the poster "thinking," Obama has enjoyed greater rural support than Clinton in many states. Examples include the earliest state of New Hampshire, where it was the more rural areas that went to Obama while the less rural seacoast went to her, to later states such as Kansas. This isn't even including caucus states.

Its worse than that molly , there are people in media that will destroy the clintons , including chelsea just for having been biologically connected. The hatred is so very deep its frightening that people can stoop as low as they have. Yet they unite under one that stands for the exact opposite of the tactics or so we have been led to believe.

They keep coming up with these new adages like the clinton dynasty, the clinton machine, hoping that one of these will be the "QOUTE" that destroys!

Bill Clinton--or anyone associated with the Clinton campaign for that matter, complaining that some people are saying their votes "don't matter" is laughable.

Especially since Hillary has been the proponent of the "insult 40 states strategy". Caucus voters don't matter; red-state voters don't matter; small state voters don't matter; state with a large African-American population don't matter.

And believe me rural Oregon voters. If your state votes for Barack Obama then YOU won't matter. Voters only matter to the Clinton campaign when they want something from you--your vote.

As soon as they have it; you're forgotten.

This is one of the big difference why Clinton can connect with the core voters of the party than Obama who continues to show his being elitist who only care about the academia and the rich.

When you hear OBAMA denigrating the very good economic record of the only Democratic administration most Americans remember; Bill's presidency in 90s. There is no problem with folks like James Clyburn. But when Bill was resented about the 92% of Black community voting against Hillary, they were upset over Bill's remarks. The black community is entitled to the presidency while rural Americans clings on guns and church because of bitterness. Double standard I call it. Racial discrimination, isn't it?

OBAMA's career has nothing to compare with Bill's and yet there are jeers and sneers from OBAMA.

I felt upset that guys like OBAMA behind a podium promising the moon, and you have no right to question about his past reocrd with dangerous villains and extremists.

Negativity means that you have no right to say anything about a politician who claims to change WASHINGTON while he has never been a factor in Congress or Senate, not of any leadership in bipartisan drive and major causes.

If that is being positive, I find negativity acceptable and safe for the country.

I find OBAMA's positivity hollow and horror-filling because he shall raise the tax by arms and legs.

About half of our voters in Oregon are rural. We only have one really big city and three or four more big enough to have transit systems. Our urban voters tend to favor the moderate to liberal candidates and issues. Our rural voters tend to favor moderate to conservative candidates and issues.

So the former president is right, the rural votes count. And people like it when the candidates/campaigns visit them. Whether or not that translates into votes is something else again.

at first the Clinton's said small and rural states don't matter only big populous states matter. Now they are the rural people's champ is anybody else tired of the lies?

Precisely right, Mr. President.

Look at concentration of technical wealth and ask what can be achieved with superior eduction online to reach rural areas, where the incentive is not no-child-left-behind but no-child-left-unconnected. We can harness the power of the digital social networks to create a revolution in education.

Any rural parent knows this. Mine did. Carter's no-cost college grants gave everyone a chance. Including me.

America is about every American.

The way for the Dems to win the White House is not to trash the only successful Democratic presidency in the last quarter century.

The way to unite the people of this country is not to accuse anyone who does'nt vote for Obama of being a racist (without acknowledging the huge lift he is getting in every state from near universal support from the black community).

The way to unite the Democratic party is not to call Bill Clinton sleazy, Hillary a pathological liar, or to refuse to acknowledge any of their merits. That is the way of a cult - to condemn everyone else and it is no new tone in politics as was promised.

A leader must appreciate the merits in the oposing view point and incorporate them into his own. Obama and his followers continually demean the Clintons and anyone who is voting for her. I need nothing further than that to convince me that his words are just carefully crafted rhetoric.

Obama's message is very appealing, but his actions prove that he doesn't mean any of it. It is a smart tactic, it worked 8 Years ago when George W Bush was selling the exact same line of unity and hope without any real details about what he wanted to do for the country. America bought this bill of goods twice before, maybe they will again, but I for one will continue to vote for the most qualified, competent candidate who has done the most for people of all races over the course of her career - Hillary Clinton.

Tom,

Even Kenneth Star didn't dream up anything that insane. If Obama's supporters now argue that the Clintons are multiple murderers, I guess I can stop wondering why they are voting for him - clearly they have no judgement whatsoever.

Of course the rural areas matter. And Paul Gronke never said they didn't matter. He said that the way of campaigning in the rural areas of Pennsylvania was not going to work here in Oregon. Demographics are different, issues are different, etc. Treating rural areas as if they're all the same state by state is an insult - you can't do it with urban areas and you definitely can't do it with rural areas. Heck, it's hard enough to do it across the entire state. Recognizing that the rural areas in Oregon are different than those in Pennsylvania isn't an insult.

And actually, we have several large cities. There are 4 cities in Oregon larger than 100,000 residents - Portland, Salem, Eugene, and Gresham. There are two cities in the 80-90,000 range (Beaverton and Hillsboro), one in the 70-80,000 range (Medford), and two in the 50-60,000 range (Corvallis and Springfield). In the under 50,000 range: five fall between 30-40,000 (Lake Oswego, Oregon City, Grants Pass, Keizer, and McMinnville), and one falls between 40-50,000 (Tigard).

That's pretty darned good for a state with only 3.7 million people.

And I should say that I grew up in a rural town in Texas and lived there for 22 years before moving to Gresham. I'm not rich - we haven't even been able to afford a house yet. I don't have a college education. I'm a white woman. I've been married for almost 11 years and have a 6 year-old daughter. I've been involved in politics for 18 years and national politics for 16 years. It was actually the 1992 Clinton race that got me involved in national politics.

So please, don't make the assumption that the only ones supporting Obama are rich, elitist, people with college degrees or politically naive young people. It's definitely not true. There are plenty of people like me who don't fit that description.

I hope Professor Paul Gronke responds to his words being twisted. I wish more people would speak up to all this distorting and spinning and misspeaking and, well, just plain old lying that comes out of the Clinton camp.

Enough already! It's insulting and cynical and adds nothing constructive to our discourse.

Just imagine: if we get this much disregard for truth in the primary process, how much abuse of power could we expect from an HRC presidency?

No, thanks. We've been lied to long enough, to disastrous effect. We deserve better.

Celebrities rarely visit small rural towns, providing a way for Bill and basic name recognition to draw a crowd.

Once the cameras are rolling, Bill attacks a straw-man of his own creation... or in this case, Paul Gronke will do.

The political sleight-of-hand here positions multi-millionaires and Washington-insiders Bill and Hillary as defenders of Oregonian rural/less informed and less/educated voters. It's a niche that jumps off the page in PA and Ohio primary results.

This may not work in Oregon, despite the Clintons fervent hopes to parlay this group to offset Obama's popularity in the larger cities.

Rural Oregon are far more informed, able to think in the abstract, and do not appreciate being manipulated by Bill Clinton or any other Eastern "celebrity".

I'm all for having Bill get out there and campaign for Hillary.

Everytime Bill opens his mouth, Obama's popularity goes up a notch.