2008? Yes. There are a few reasons. The first is cultural. Clinton spun a strong narrative in the primaries as a daughter of middle America. Obama was very much seen as a product of an elite Harvard-Chicago political system that greatly turns off Appalachian voters. The second is the Bill factor. Don't underestimate how popular he is in that area of the country. He symbolizes economic growth, as well as the ascension of the Southern culture to the highest office in the country. Hillary would benefit from that popularity, and she'd be wise enough to deploy Bill to those states. Third, Clinton's campaign was aimed at working class Americans. Obama's message of "Hope and Change" wasn't elitist, but it primarily appealed to outsiders (African-Americans, young people, more affluent voters) who haven't been targeted in recent elections. White-working class voters are part of Clinton's base, and she communicated directly to them.
With that all in mind, I see the 2008 election map turning out something like this:
Senator Hillary Clinton/Senator Evan Bayh (D): 360 EVs, 52% of the PV
Senator John McCain/Governor Tim Pawlenty (R): 178 EVs, 46% of the PV
Now here's how I see 2012 turning out. Let's assume Clinton pushes harder on the economy, but only gets a few elements of healthcare reform passed and takes a more hawkish tone on foreign policy. Also, let's assume she faces off against Mitt Romney in the election.
President Hillary Clinton/Vice-President Evan Bayh (D): 50% of the PV, 327 EVs
Governor Mitt Romney/Senator Rob Portman (R): 48% of the PV, 211 EVs
