I'm quite confident that she would've won both, along with Missouri, but lost Indiana. KY and NC are question marks in my head; she would've done much better in the first and a little worse in the second, but I don't know if it would've been enough to swing the result.
The more salient question might be whether Clinton can be competitive there in 2016, and I think the answer to that is "no longer".
No, meaning you're right, because the states Arkansas and West Virginia won't go Democratic unless the party is winning by at least 15 percentage points nationwide with a likely landslide of carrying 80 percent of available states. That would include campaign strategy to include both states in shaping the map for that winning candidate. In theory the winning Democrat would probably carry those states at least 12 percentage points less than the national margin. (It might be that they'd be bare wins.)
Just look at how different AR and WV would have likely been in 2008 compared to how they'll likely vote in 2016 if Clinton ran in either year. A lot can change in a decade, and you can't project 2014's politics onto how AR and WV relate to the Democratic Party too far into the future.
