Change: Indiana May Say "No Thanks"

How sick are you of hearing politicians -- all of them -- talk about change?

The New York Times reports for Indiana voters, talk of change may fall flat. [More...]

Many of the two dozen voters interviewed in this central Indiana manufacturing city of 46,000 expressed queasiness over the notions of change that both Democratic candidates have proudly pledged elsewhere. Though residents bemoaned economic conditions that have taken away thousands of factory jobs and given the state the 11th-highest rate of foreclosures, they also said they worried about doing things — anything — very differently.

“What are we going to change to?” asked Ron O’Bryan, 58, a retired auto worker who said he was still trying to decide which Democrat to vote for in the May 6 primary. “You mean change to some other country’s system? What do you think they mean?”

And here's an interesting note about Indiana's primary:

There are 72 delegates at stake, and this is an open primary; in practice, anyone may choose a Democratic ballot, though state officials say technically there is a provision allowing voters to be challenged if they are believed to be switching party affiliations at the polls. Some 4.3 million voters are registered in the state, including 200,000 new voters this year. More than 50,000 people have already cast ballots in early voting.

It's another state that won't go Democratic in November.

And unlike some other states, including Pennsylvania, Indiana has mostly been ignored in general elections, too. It has long been written off by both parties as so reliably Republican in presidential races as to not be worth much note. After 1936, a Democratic presidential candidate has won the general election here only once, Lyndon B. Johnson in 1964.

“Every year, two minutes after our polls close, they declare Indiana for the Republicans and that’s that,” Bob Stephenson, the local Democratic chairman said. “

Is it even worth blogging about?

< Who's Stronger in November Against McCain? | "Changing The Rules" >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    Heh (5.00 / 6) (#1)
    by Steve M on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 10:36:15 PM EST
    Indiana is definitely a "no excuses" state for Obama.  In fact, Northwestern Indiana is basically a suburb of Chicago.

    I am already so sick of hearing people refer to PA as Hillary's "home state."  You'd think 4 generations of Clintons had occupied the governor's mansion or something.

    change fell flat anyway... (5.00 / 3) (#2)
    by white n az on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 10:48:08 PM EST
    everyone pretty much figured out that Obama is a politician.

    I guarantee that we will NOT hear the words bitter or cling coming from Obama's mouth before May 6.

    I think the electability issue has become the story now and Obama made a completely blunder by calling Indiana 'the tiebreaker'

    and Carville jumped on it (5.00 / 5) (#8)
    by angie on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 10:59:55 PM EST
    on Larry King tonight Carville probably said 20x how he "agrees with Sen. Obama that Indiana is the tie breaker."  The Ragin Cajun didn't just fall off the turnip truck.  

    Obama will come to regret (5.00 / 3) (#11)
    by andgarden on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 11:01:40 PM EST
    having said that, IMO.

    contrast that with the Big Dog: (5.00 / 5) (#15)
    by Kathy on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 11:04:45 PM EST
    "Hillary has to win TX and OH." = She wins TX and OH.

    "Hillary has to win PA." = She wins PA.

    Obama really shouldn't try to sit at the adult table in situations like this.  Best to eat his waffle somewhere else.


    Carville (none / 0) (#14)
    by AnninCA on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 11:04:04 PM EST
    I heard ate Richardson for lunch.  :)

    Totally (5.00 / 5) (#26)
    by angie on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 11:10:16 PM EST
    First, Carville didn't back down from his Judas comment and repeated it twice to Richardson's face.  Second, he argued circles around Richardson's "monarchy" and "Hillary feels entitled" argument, asking "how can you compare this to a monarchy when people are voting?" Richardson was actually sputtering, at a total loss for words. At the end Richardson repeated his boilerplate mantra that "he isn't asking Hillary to drop out, but we have to stop the blood letting" GAH! Carville laughed at him.  I thoroughly enjoyed it.

    I'm jealous! (5.00 / 1) (#32)
    by AnninCA on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 11:14:34 PM EST
    I wish I'd seen it.

    Part one on youtube... (5.00 / 2) (#37)
    by reynwrap582 on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 11:21:21 PM EST
    Part One...

    The same person is posting the following parts.


    Southern Slap (5.00 / 1) (#39)
    by Step Beyond on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 11:31:55 PM EST
    Carville did the classic southern slap with the "bless their hearts." As a southerner I always love that.

    I like that to because (5.00 / 1) (#45)
    by RalphB on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 11:49:27 PM EST
    you always know the slap is coming.  :-)

    I make a point to listen to him (none / 0) (#46)
    by nycstray on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 11:50:40 PM EST
    I broke my cable boycott to watch Hillary's speech last night and Carville tonight. It was funny watching him on the split screen. Kept me from turning it off while Richardson repeatedly whined about how negative Hillary is with all the bickering yada yada yada. Damn, somebody should give that guy a mirror.

    Carville has a way with words that I appreciate. I didn't know "bless their hearts" was a Southern Slap. I like it even more now, lol!~


    Southerners (5.00 / 1) (#54)
    by Step Beyond on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 12:07:33 AM EST
    have a tradition of insulting while appearing helpful or kind. Often they'll just add "bless their heart" to the insult. For example:

    Mary Lou just can't seem to shed that baby weight, bless her heart.

    Its just good manners. :D In fact, I don't think I've ever heard that phrase used if it wasn't part of an insult.


    :D (none / 0) (#107)
    by kempis on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 08:12:57 AM EST
    True. It was a good 'un, too.

    By the end, Richardson had actually developed a nervous tic.

    I'm truly disappointed in Richardson. He was third on my list before the debates began, solely on his experience in Clinton's cabinet. His debate performances were largely abysmal, except when he was being "cute."

    Now I have no idea what Bill Clinton was thinking when he appointed him Sec. of Energy and ambassador to the UN. Richardson seems merely a Tenet-like, schmoozing, not-too-bright, back-slapping back-stabber.


    Oh boy (5.00 / 1) (#75)
    by Edgar08 on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 03:55:50 AM EST
    Richardson literally said "Why should he do a debate if all that happens is Obama is attacked?"

    Should have just said it:  Obama can't handle a debate where he's attacked.

    The GE is not going to be a fun place for Barack Obama.


    Hee Hee that's just so funny (5.00 / 2) (#77)
    by Serene1 on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 04:33:49 AM EST
    so now we know Obama's strategy of fighting. Never face to face always behind the back. Must be the new kind of politics.

    Obama supporters don't realize (none / 0) (#89)
    by Josey on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 07:16:35 AM EST
    how elitist this sounds - like he's entitled to special treatment....

    >>Richardson literally said "Why should he do a debate if all that happens is Obama is attacked?"


    Carville knocks Richardson cabeza Pt 2 and 3 links (5.00 / 1) (#76)
    by Ellie on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 04:28:32 AM EST
    Here's Part Two.

    Here's Part Three.


    Thanks! (none / 0) (#40)
    by AnninCA on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 11:40:54 PM EST
    What fun!

    At least Richardson remembered to mention Obama.  :)


    Watching it now (none / 0) (#41)
    by blogtopus on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 11:41:21 PM EST
    Carville is really holding back in this segment... looks like Richardson is getting a free ride...

    Wait... OH MY. Namby-pambyism... this is fun to watch. Boy this guy is a real fighter, just like Hillary.

    I get the feeling, though, that Hillary can beat Carville down in a debate if she let loose. :-)


    AnninCA....King is on again in 18 minutes PST (none / 0) (#70)
    by PssttCmere08 on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 01:43:07 AM EST
    Carville is crazy (none / 0) (#104)
    by stefystef on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 07:57:55 AM EST
    Crazy like a fox!!!

    Carville is too smart for Richardson.  I'm glad he's keeping things real because reality left during the Obama Magical Mystery Tour.  Well, that "bus" ride is coming to an end and the reality is getting real stinky.


    Huge Richardson Gaffe Team HRC should pound flat (none / 0) (#78)
    by Ellie on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 04:44:16 AM EST
    In trying to characterize to Seb Clinton's run as an arrogant, monarchic expectation of dynasty, Richard said that "America isn't Monaco!"

    Say what now? To Obama they would be interchangable, as would be China and Luxembourg, Russia and Outer Slobovia.

    This is the guy who sees all states as interchangable when his scuzzy math shows he has an insurmountable lead because he's won "more contests" ... cause, ya know, a win in Rhode Island counts for him just as much as one in California counts for Sen Clinton.


    The (5.00 / 2) (#3)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 10:54:55 PM EST
    change mantra alone certainly won't do it. This story is one of the reasons that I think Hillary will do well in IN. She tells then WHAT the change will be while Obama just talks about change for the sake of change.

    I heard her speak in Atlanta (5.00 / 5) (#5)
    by Kathy on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 10:59:12 PM EST
    and my friends and I kept saying, "It's crazy.  She says: this is the problem, this is how I'll solve it, and this is how I will pay for it."  I mean, she was so specific.  We'd never heard anything so thoughtful and well-planned coming from a politician's mouth (and one of my friends is herself a poll, and she was taking notes)

    Based on what little I know about Indiana, they are solutions-based people.  They want tangibles.  I think that's Clinton's biggest appeal.  They know that she is brilliant, but (as with Bill) they don't feel like she is talking down to them; they feel like she is advocating for them.  When you are sick, you don't mind your doctor being smarter than you.

    And Clinton was WAY ahead of folks on the mortgage crisis, so she can really speak to them on that issue.


    I'm already (5.00 / 3) (#13)
    by AnninCA on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 11:03:17 PM EST
    ready to predict another PA double-digit win for her in Indiana.

    I lived there.  She's their gal.  They just don't know it yet.


    well... (5.00 / 2) (#42)
    by white n az on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 11:41:38 PM EST
    the last SUSA poll from Indiana they had her up by 16% but that might be a bit too strong...hard to say.

    Link here for Survey USA Indiana of 4/15/2008


    Bump (5.00 / 1) (#44)
    by AnninCA on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 11:47:30 PM EST
    from her win, no doubt.

    It will tighten.

    But I still predict a double digit win.

    I want her to have enough cash to take it to him on his home turf.

    That would really send a message.

    But it would take real money, too.


    About IN polls and MSNBC (none / 0) (#103)
    by kempis on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 07:57:55 AM EST
    Last night, David Gregory and his panel of Obamites continuously referred to the Bloomberg poll which shows Obama with a 5 point lead in Indiana. I was flabbergasted--though why, I don't know. In fact, I don't know why I still watch MSNBC on occasion.

    Here's the poll they seem to accept as solid:


    Notice it had Hillary ahead in PA only by 5 and the article stressed how totally un-harmed Obama was by "bittergate."


    And yet Gregory and Maddow and the whole MSNBC crew seemed blissfully unaware that Hillary's kicking Obama's butt in the Survey USA poll.


    fwiw... (none / 0) (#111)
    by white n az on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 08:29:54 AM EST
    LA Times/Bloomberg polls have not been reliable themselves and show an incredible number of undecideds.

    That said, if MSNBC wants to float the notion that Obama is up in Indiana, it probably does nothing more than damage MSNBC's credibility...big shock there.


    Both Clintons and Gore (5.00 / 1) (#98)
    by BernieO on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 07:39:30 AM EST
    are like this - they have well-thought-out policies. The media hates them for it and derisively calls them "Wonks". They hate candidates like this just like high school kids often dislike good students - the "nerds" - for not being cool and making them feel dumb. The media are too lazy to do the work needed to cover these candidates in depth and it is not as much fun as swooning over a change monger, a guy who tells colorful stories about his old stripper girlfriend the way Johnny Mac does, or gives them stupid, demeaning nicknames the way Shrub does.

    Our emotionally adolescent media is badly damaging our democracy. If they had done their job in 2000 there is no way Americans would have elected Bush. Not that we did, but the margins would have been Supreme Court proof.


    Well, I saw a study of journalism students (none / 0) (#128)
    by Cream City on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 10:46:28 AM EST
    Print media (newspapers, magazines) students got the better grades, because they were hard-working -- but they were boring with little innate curiosity about what was handed to them. The most balanced students, interestingly, were pr and advertising students, who got good grades, worked hard, but also challenged teachers and themselves, with a lot of curiosity about human nature.

    Broadcast students were never boring; they were the party animals -- but were C students at best, bright enough but not willing to do hard work on stories that took more than a few minutes.

    No doubt, the better students could have found flaws in the study.  The broadcast students would just read it when it was put in front of them, huh?  And not see its application to themselves but just turn to happy, happy talk. . . .

    (Sadly, of course, even the brightest employers tend to ask for resumes but not transcripts.:-)


    demographics (5.00 / 2) (#4)
    by formerhoosier on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 10:58:29 PM EST
    Northwestern Indiana is not an estension of Chicago.
    Gary and South Bend were and are very much working class, not upper income as in Chicago burbs.  The rest of the state has much more in common with Southern Illinois than with Chicago and Northern Illinois.  Southern Illinois and I-70 corridor went for Clinton.  Northern Indiana, South Bend and Mishawaka, have more in common with Michigan than Illinois.  Demographics also not favorable, almost 90% white and less than 10% African American.  

    Interesting (5.00 / 1) (#9)
    by nell on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 11:00:50 PM EST
    my perspective is very different from yours. Gary is not high income, but there is a significant African American population in Gary. Also, there are many areas around NW Indiana, especially those closest to Chicago, like Scherrerrville (spelling?), that are quite affluent.

    Here's his problem (5.00 / 1) (#35)
    by AnninCA on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 11:17:31 PM EST
    And nobody is talking about this one yet.

    He didn't get out the vote nearly as much in PA with his AA support group.

    Several polls were way off, predicting 18% of the total as AA....

    but he dropped in percentage.  So yes, he's still knocking out 90%, but his 90% is of a smaller group.

    His "new and shiny" has worn off.  Plus, he didn't give them "walking around money."

    Bad move.

    He drove them nuts with his non-stop ads and failed to put money in their pockets.

    A lot of them apparently stayed home.


    Jackson Five No Longer in Gary, That's 5 Less :) (none / 0) (#65)
    by PssttCmere08 on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 01:31:10 AM EST
    I suppose districts (5.00 / 1) (#12)
    by Kathy on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 11:02:20 PM EST
    haven't been gerrymandered by republicans as in other states?

    Plus, PA showed us that Clinton is making inroads into the lattes.  Maybe they are starting to feel the economic pinch of filling up their SUVs at 4+ bucks a gallon?  Or maybe the Wright stuff turned them off?  I have to admit, I'm pretty offended by Wright's words myself.  I know I'm a Clinton supporter so this is taken with a grain of salt, but it really upset me to hear that crap.  I can't imagine I'm the only liberal dem who had that reaction.


    Not at all (5.00 / 2) (#19)
    by nell on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 11:05:48 PM EST
    I was offended by his words as well. I thought the whole God D*** America bit was over the top and counterproductive, especially because I think such a statement means a lot more coming from a man who obviously believes in God, not to mention when it is said from the pulpit, but I understand what he meant in context. What offended me most deeply was what he said about Hillary and Bill Clinton. He was cruel at the pulpit. Obama has not apologized to Hillary for these awful statements, and neither has Rev. Wright despite the fact that he was part of the campaign.

    And honestly, I am familiar with the south side of Chicago and even I knew Rev. Wright's church was controversial. Just makes it hard to take Obama seriously when he claims he didn't know...


    you mean (5.00 / 3) (#24)
    by Kathy on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 11:08:35 PM EST
    when he humped the pulpit?  Yeah, that bothered me, too, and I'm not religious a bit.

    I was most offended by the Natalie Holloway stuff.  Man, I can't imagine what her mother would think if she heard that spiteful crap.  It said volumes to me about how that man thinks about women, and then when I think that Obama is raising his two daughters in that atmosphere...just makes me queasy.


    I totally don't get (5.00 / 2) (#51)
    by gyrfalcon on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 12:03:06 AM EST
    why parents would send their luscious young teen daughters off essentially by themselves to party and drink themselves silly in another country as a high school graduation present myself, but there's a level of charity, not to mention taste, below which only a supermarket tabloid would go on the subject, and Wright's railing about it went below that.

    I don't disagree with a lot of what he said about a lot of things, but I guess I'm enough of a New Englander that railing that way from the pulpit of a church makes me cringe.  At a demonstration or rally, hey, go for it.  But in a church?  The tone should be a lot different, IMHO>


    gyrfalcon (5.00 / 1) (#99)
    by Kathy on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 07:41:37 AM EST
    I was myself once a luscious teen who took the requisite senior trip.  We were sent off to have fun, and in the south, at least, the Senior Trip is a right of passage.  And it's not always what you see on MTV. (I was terribly bored, hating the beach owing to terminal pastiness, and I don't really drink, so...)

    Even if we did party and drink ourselves silly, that still doesn't mean that any of us deserved to be raped and killed, which is the main message hat  Wright was conveying in his "sermon."

    I suppose this is what Obama meant when he talked about "the sanctity of sexuality."  In my opinion, women have every right to drink what they want, have sex with whomever they want, and enjoy themselves without seeing violent rape and death as a fitting social consequence.  

    Natalie Holloway was abducted, raped-possibly gang raped-and murdered.  Her parents may never know what happened to her.  Her body may never be found.  The man or men who raped and murdered her will most likely walk away-and live to rape and kill another day.  I suppose they will pick another young woman who "deserves" it, too.


    ps: gyrfalcon (none / 0) (#102)
    by Kathy on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 07:54:25 AM EST
    didn't mean in any way that this was how you felt--just Wright, and perhaps some of his parishoners in the audience who were clapping and cheering.

    I thought there was no evidence as to what (none / 0) (#122)
    by jawbone on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 09:59:01 AM EST
    actually happened to Natalie Holloway--she could have gone swimming and got caught in an undertow? (Are there undertows where she was or could have been on the island?) Were the young men perhaps intimidated into saying things that weren't true? It's been shown to happen....

    But, while I would rail against the media attention given to a pretty white girl gone missing, I would not blame her alleged lack of "morals."

    It is galling that Missing White Women (if pretty) make not only the news, but make up weeks and months of cable bloviating--and missing black or other minority women? Meh--hardly any attention, if any at all.

    Now, I have a hard time getting the image of Rev. Wright humping at the altar while talking about Bill Clinton "doing the dirty."

    But that's just me.


    Beyond the points you bring up (none / 0) (#139)
    by Kathy on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 01:13:16 PM EST
    the fact is that Rev White said that Natalie Holloway deserved to be raped and murdered because she had some drinks and went off with one of those guys.

    Everyone should have a problem with that sort of thinking.  


    Natalee Holloway case (none / 0) (#143)
    by gyrfalcon on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 11:48:21 PM EST
    is interesting.  You're right that there's no direct evidence of what happened to her, but the three young men she went off with from the bar have apparently fallen all over themselves with many different stories at different about what happened.  I can't see any likelihood that they murdered her, but it seems to me (and her mother) that what probably happened was that she died, or they thought she died, most likely from having been given GHB, "date rape drug," and they dumped her body in the ocean.

    I don't think there's much question that the young men know exactly what happened to her, but won't say for fear of being prosecuted.

    That said, nobody has been able to find any real evidence, so it will always be a mystery.  Because of the way the currents work on that part of the island, from what I understand, her body would be washed out to sea and never come back to shore.

    You are entirely right that all the media attention goes to missing white women, preferably pretty ones, and ones to whom the adjective "upscale" can somehow be made to apply.

    The Holloway case, though, is a genuinely fascinating mystery, particularly given the vastly different legal/judicial system that prevails on Aruba.  For just one thing, plea-bargaining is expressly forbidden, which is one reason they haven't been able to break the conspiracy of silence and denial among the three young men.


    Interesting! Had no idea Aruba's system had (none / 0) (#144)
    by jawbone on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 10:35:58 AM EST
    no plea bargain provisions and thus the effect on possible conspirators.

    I agree with you completely (none / 0) (#142)
    by gyrfalcon on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 11:39:00 PM EST
    Of course, nobody "deserves" to be raped or murdered, I don't care what the circumstances are.  But it's to my mind willful stupidity to think that "lucious young girls" can go running around by themselves, drunk as a skunk, and always escape unharmed.  Lots of girls don't fully comprehend that, but their parents have no excuse.  I understand this is a Southern tradition, but I think it's an extraordinarily stupid and bad one.

    Do you have any sense that the publicity over Holloway's fate has caused anybody there to reconsider this tradition?


    Wright stuff (5.00 / 2) (#81)
    by Munibond on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 05:44:27 AM EST
    The overall message of Wright and the church's theology as posted on its website is pro-black and anti-white, which feeds the fires of racism.  The message also expressly rejects white middle class values.  Wright and his ilk have been preaching this stuff for decades now, and I don't see any evidence that it has had positive results for urban black communities.  It speaks volumes that Wright's dream retirement home is in a gated, upscale, largely white  development.  Obama should have to answer for why he has been so attracted to this fraud.  Having said that, I think the N.C. ad, tying state candidates to Wright, is disgusting and should be condemned.

    The house is very odd. (5.00 / 1) (#101)
    by BernieO on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 07:50:47 AM EST
    How does a minister of a lower income church afford that house? Even if there is a legitimate source for his money - how popular are those tapes he sells? - why wouldn't most of if go back into his church community? Who needs to retire to a 10,000 square foot home? (Is that a South Side Chicago thing? The Obamas apparently could not do without their mansion, either. Who goes to a friend being investigated by the Feds for corruption to get help buying a home you can't afford instead of finding a less grand one you can afford? Talk about not relating to ordinary Americans.)

    As for rejecting white middle class values, from what I have read, they have co-opted them as black values. I think this makes a kind of sense. One of the big problems facing the AA community is the pressure to reject middle class values (getting an education for example)as "acting white". Relabeling traditional values as black values is an attempt to get around that problem. Unless the message is that white people don't also believe in these values I don't have a problem with it.


    On the other hand (5.00 / 1) (#105)
    by BernieO on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 07:59:11 AM EST
    Wright's constant harping on how whites victimize blacks is very harmful to his community. Having a victim mentality is seriously disempowering because it makes people feel helpless. This kind of worldview has been repeatedly shown to make people much more prone to depression and failure. It is one thing to recognize legitimate discrimination, it is another to wallow in a sense of victimization and anger which Wright seems to do.

    Yes! (none / 0) (#114)
    by catfish on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 09:00:50 AM EST
    My biggest concern.

    Bill Moyers will interview him Fri (none / 0) (#113)
    by catfish on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 08:58:32 AM EST
    and he's a good journalist. May ask about this.

    Moyers defended Hillary (or defended LBJ) on the civil rights issue.


    Yea it was the humping (none / 0) (#115)
    by abfabdem on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 09:38:25 AM EST
    the pulpit that I found really over the top.  Aren't there kids in that congregation?  I can't imagine a minister doing that in church!!

    I'm going (5.00 / 3) (#21)
    by AnninCA on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 11:06:31 PM EST
    with the SUV tank theory, myself.

    Alot of these people are dual income.

    It's scary right now.  And they are super in debt.  In LA, the areas most affected?

    High income households.  They are holding their breath.


    Mortgage crisis, too (5.00 / 1) (#86)
    by Coral on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 06:45:02 AM EST
    I want someone in the White House who has a good grasp of economic policy. Hillary Clinton is that person.

    You are not alone (5.00 / 2) (#33)
    by angie on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 11:15:26 PM EST
    I didn't like hearing it either -- not just because I knew it would sink the Dems chances at the WH if Obama is the nominee -- but on a real basic level.  I freely criticize this country and politicians, as is my right to, but the Wright stuff was way, way overboard -- the stuff he said about G** D*** America & the Clinton slurs -- it is hate speech, plain and simple, imo -- I don't need to know the "context" of it and there is no excuse for it.

    no you were not the only liberal to feel that way (5.00 / 2) (#61)
    by TeresaInPa on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 12:40:56 AM EST
    I was turned off by Wright and even more by the comments about democrats who were small town religious rubes and gun toting bigots.
    I don't know who the hell that is.  I live here and that is NOT why people were not voting for him.

    divide and conquer (5.00 / 1) (#80)
    by karen for Clinton on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 05:30:01 AM EST
    I think Wright was disasterously offensive and a bully pulpit brainwasher to his parishoners. I've never accepted hate-speach of any kind and that is how I view his spewing.  Exclusive not inclusive, not christian and anti-american hate.

    The hypocrite in his 10 million dollar mansion.

    Everything associated with Obama gives off a bad image of democrats to the country.

    Wright-Farrakhan-Hamas, Bible-Gun-elite-bitter, Ayers-Flag-Proud, Rezko-Blago(documented frequent visits from Obama/Blago), Obama and his thugs constant smear of Bill - our only 2 term Pres.

    The RNC machine will not only soil Obama, they will soil anyone who backs Obama and to a lesser extent ALL democrats as partakers of radicalism.

    His campaign unsuccessfully has portayed him as:
    Judgment (nope rezko), Unity (nope Wright), Change (nope hype), Hope (nope chicago slums)...

    Clinton: Solutions - Yes she will and No He Can't.


    My feeling about Wright.... (5.00 / 1) (#93)
    by Maria Garcia on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 07:26:59 AM EST
    I could have seen myself as being attracted to his style and message when I was in my 20s, but after a while I would have gotten bored with it. 20 years, no way. And what I listened to as a youth tended to make me uncomfortable when I listened to it as a parent with my children sitting next to me. That goes for pop songs, movies, etc. I remember when my 12 year old made me watch Rocky Horror Picture Show with her. I was really uncomfortable in spite of the fact that I'd put in my hours at the Rocky Horror midnight shows in full costume.

    Amazingly (none / 0) (#18)
    by andgarden on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 11:05:41 PM EST
    the IN congressional map is now a Democratic gerrymander. That's because they had a majority on the redistricting board in 2001, when the map was drawn. (They controlled the Governor's mansion and the state house, giving them 2/3 of the appointments, IIRC).

    Seems you're saying parts of it are (none / 0) (#129)
    by Cream City on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 10:48:05 AM EST
    an extension of Chicago, the city.  Not the burbs, but that's not what was said, what I read. . . .  

    Hoosier Perspective (5.00 / 4) (#6)
    by nell on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 10:59:15 PM EST
    Obama really does have a home court advantage here. I grew up in Northwest Indiana, just over the border from Chicago. Really, NW Indiana is considered a suburb of Chicago. We share media markets with Chicago, people go to Chicago very often on the weekends, etc. There is a lot of familiarity with Chicago politics and a lot of familiarity with Obama.

    NW Indiana is also a reliably blue county in local elections and even in the general, NW Indiana, Indianapolis, and college towns tend to be blue districts. I expect these will be the areas in which Obama does very well due to a high percentage of African Americans, more affluent/highly educated voters, and students. He also has the advantage of headquarter proximity - it is VERY easy for his headquarter volunteers to flood Indiana to get boots on the ground.

    Just hearing reports from my family in NW Indiana, this area is so far going big for Obama. My dad also knows republicans at work who are going to cross over to vote for Obama to stop Hillary because they think he is easier to beat. I have no idea how big this stop Hillary crossover vote will be, but my dad has mentioned this a couple of times.

    If Clinton is to win this state (and to be honest, I see this as an uphill climb for her with Obama starting with a 5-7 point advantage), she has to win HUGE in every other area of the state and get huge turnout in rural areas.

    As for me, I proudly sent in my absentee ballot for Hillary =)

    Good perspective of Indiana politics (none / 0) (#88)
    by stefystef on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 07:10:30 AM EST
    And thank you for your vote for Hillary : )

    SUSA's polling (5.00 / 1) (#10)
    by andgarden on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 11:01:10 PM EST
    has recently shown Hillary with an almost absurdly large lead here. but I'll be interested to see what they say next.

    when will they release the next poll? (none / 0) (#17)
    by Kathy on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 11:05:17 PM EST
    I could imagine it as early as tomorrow (none / 0) (#20)
    by andgarden on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 11:06:24 PM EST
    but more likely next Tuesday.

    thanks (none / 0) (#27)
    by Kathy on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 11:10:17 PM EST
    and thanks for the districting info downthread.  Food for thought-and something to talk about and dissect until we have nervous breakdowns waiting for the next elections!  Better rest up now!

    andgarden what was the date on SUSA's (none / 0) (#31)
    by athyrio on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 11:13:38 PM EST
    poll in Indiana?

    On the 14th (5.00 / 1) (#34)
    by andgarden on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 11:16:11 PM EST

    There was another poll that they conducted a little later, but it used different, and dubious, methodology.


    andgarden - (none / 0) (#87)
    by Josey on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 07:07:11 AM EST
    who was the best pollster on PA final results?

    Zogby's tracking poll nailed it (none / 0) (#112)
    by ineedalife on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 08:37:23 AM EST
    Zogby's final poll was at 10%. But alot of polls had it at 9-10% too. I think SUSA had 9%. There was alot of despair Monday morning when their number came in under 10.

    Dave Barry (5.00 / 3) (#29)
    by Step Beyond on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 11:12:23 PM EST
    Had a column about how all the candidates are for change.

    Everybody in this race, Democrat and Republican, is now officially for Change. They get more fervent about Change every day; it's only a matter of time before they start calling for tactical air strikes on Washington. I'll be honest with you: I'm getting tired of Change. I think it'd be nice, for a change, if a candidate came out against Change, maybe with a catchy slogan like, ''Remember: It Could Get Worse,'' or ``Hey, At Least You're Not Dead.''

    Seems to me anyone who isn't an incumbent always runs on change. I mean its kind of the whole point of voting for someone else.

    You Tout Change When You Have No Record To Run On (5.00 / 2) (#67)
    by PssttCmere08 on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 01:36:38 AM EST
    Today the International (none / 0) (#138)
    by oculus on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 12:28:45 PM EST
    Herald Tribune ran an article stating 40% of PA votes wanted "change," but it looks like they voted for Clinton.

    POLICY PERSPECTIVE (5.00 / 2) (#30)
    by formerhoosier on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 11:13:00 PM EST
    Granted this is the perspective from someone who was born and raised in South Bend, from a working class family.  And maybe someone else would have a different perspective, but Hoosiers look for someone who has concrete ideas with solutions.  They are not for someone who speaks in platitudes about what they might do, they want to know what you will do.  Just my $.02

    this will go HRC (5.00 / 2) (#43)
    by AlSmith on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 11:46:52 PM EST
    and here is why:

    In some ways, these are voters not so unlike those in other Rust Belt states, like Pennsylvania, but with an added dose of nostalgia and a practical, Midwestern sensibility.

    IN's are not the type to fall for the kind of puffery marketing that O has been doing elsewhere. And the celebrity endorsements are not likely to turn heads either.


    I Don't Think M. Moore Helped Obama At All (none / 0) (#68)
    by PssttCmere08 on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 01:37:47 AM EST
    If so, that will help Hillary (none / 0) (#48)
    by cymro on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 11:52:54 PM EST
    She's the candidate with concrete ideas and solutions.

    I love it when politicians talk about change. (5.00 / 3) (#38)
    by Faust on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 11:23:48 PM EST
    Until I remember that they are lying.

    guts in office (none / 0) (#97)
    by sarany on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 07:37:40 AM EST
    they have to be willing to lose their next election and go to the mat for what they ran on / believe in.

    I hope (har) that both these Dems fall into this category.


    Richardson (5.00 / 1) (#47)
    by Stellaaa on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 11:52:27 PM EST
    What a lost case.  He kept saying that he was up against dictators and he knows Obama is ready, he said it twice.  What in Gawd's name does that mean?  Can anyone tell me?  

    He also said Kansas was..... (5.00 / 1) (#95)
    by Maria Garcia on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 07:29:01 AM EST
    ...a battleground state. How can you take the man seriously.

    Sorry but Obama and his crew (5.00 / 2) (#49)
    by Stellaaa on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 11:55:32 PM EST
    bless their heart, but they are acting like the babies they are.  Endless complaining.  I think this is starting to annoy lots of people.  

    Richardson seems to have taken a bath (5.00 / 2) (#50)
    by nycstray on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 11:59:47 PM EST
    in the Kool-Aid tank. He's really over the edge. I have to wonder if he's become addicted to the Daily Obama . . . .

    At least (5.00 / 1) (#53)
    by AnninCA on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 12:06:43 AM EST
    he remembered to mention Obama.  His endorsement was embarassing.

    All about him.

    Sort of like Michael Moore's endorsement.

    Man, I know now when Gore says, "Why would I endorse," what he's talking about!


    Gore's no fool! lol!~ (5.00 / 2) (#56)
    by nycstray on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 12:15:27 AM EST
    Looks like Edwards isn't either.

    I find it interesting that they can't get the Dem voter base to hop on the Magical Mystery Tour. Especially when things are so bad. Restores my faith to a degree.

    Gives me a whole new set of criteria to look at when I lend support to down ticket Dems in my state and others, that's for sure!


    Magical Mystery Tour is stalling (5.00 / 1) (#90)
    by stefystef on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 07:20:08 AM EST
    Thank you, I totally agree with you.
    I've been saying that Obama is losing steam and this is something Axelrod and crew didn't want to happen.  They wanted Hillary to drop out before OH/TX primaries so Obama could rest and sit back for a while.

    Hillary won't quit because she BELIEVES she is the right person for the Presidency.  And I agree with her.

    Hillary '08!


    Yep, the Super Tuesday strategy (none / 0) (#130)
    by Cream City on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 10:56:07 AM EST
    that was to end this way more than two months ago.  There would be no concerns about caucus states still recaucusing, so his delegate counts there are mushy.  No concerns about popular vote and how to count caucus states, not to mention FL and MI, etc.

    Obama didn't close it and put it away as he was supposed to do, without ever having to get specific -- or get questioned (that translates to attacked in Obamaspeek, of course).  He was supposed to keep going on vacation in the Virgin Islands and eating his waffles in peace while just phoning it in until the convention.


    Man, this guy was Secretary (none / 0) (#52)
    by Stellaaa on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 12:03:47 AM EST
    of Energy and then in the UN, what a loser.  

    I was 'this close' to sending him an (none / 0) (#55)
    by nycstray on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 12:08:36 AM EST
    email. But, I prob would have called him a tool or something, so I refrained. I always thought he was an ok guy until he started speaking for Obama. No problem with the endorsement etc, just have a prob with what's coming out of his mouth.

    I just don't get how these people can go so in the tank for him . . . . . with nothing tangible to back it up that is.


    Richardson is simple (none / 0) (#57)
    by gyrfalcon on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 12:18:32 AM EST
    Obama promised him a big cabinet post, or the VP slot.  He's quite shameless, and IMHO not that bright.

    Proof? (none / 0) (#58)
    by AnninCA on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 12:20:36 AM EST
    I'm sort of into being fair.

    Any proof of a promise?


    Why else would he be such a shill (none / 0) (#60)
    by Stellaaa on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 12:33:20 AM EST
    his a politician.  Judas, how many gold pieces ?  Proof, what proof, we can deduce.  

    You Watching Larry King? (none / 0) (#69)
    by PssttCmere08 on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 01:39:31 AM EST
    I was amazed at Richardson's excuses for not having another debate.  It seems as if Richardson has been hoodwinked and doesn't know how to extricate himself from the clutches of Obama.

    Keith Olbermann said (5.00 / 6) (#63)
    by Serene1 on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 01:21:19 AM EST
    as per Joan walsh of salon:

    Update: Did MSNBC's Keith Olbermann really say that? He and "Countdown" stalwart Howard Fineman were reprising their regular conversation about the perfidy of the Clinton campaign Wednesday night when Fineman bemoaned the lack of Democratic leaders (he called that an oxymoron) who could tell Clinton the race was over. Olbermann did him one better, insisting that ending Clinton's campaign requires finding a strong Democratic leader "who can take her into a room, and only he comes out." I know and like and have worked with Keith Olbermann, but that just sounded...wrong.

    TeamO's out of excuses for not winning it yet (none / 0) (#73)
    by Ellie on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 03:45:56 AM EST
    Oh for some Princess Leia earmuffs and a cucumber mask.

    Is this the kind of leadership Obama's going to show? Get his team and supporters to whine and complain for his problems to go away?

    Thank gawd it takes more than idiocy as risible as an impotent Obamann Fineman whine of entitlement to tank the unsinkable.

    I have a challenge to TeamO and camp followers like the above and MoDo, (even the troll brigades who descend here, working the neighborhood with ruses that would make a cult blush.)

    Come up with a solutions-based proposal for why Sen Clinton should quit. Offer solid reasons based in fact, of why the obstacles are insurmountable. Show the work, don't repeat junk that everyone knows is not true as part of the equation.

    Name the potential rewards that await Sen Clinton should she go along with it.

    Offer the package up on the airwaves, op=ed or posted as a diary at the Daily Kos.

    Simple, elegant, and it's not whine-based (has less usual, anyway).


    He Said It (none / 0) (#84)
    by chrisvee on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 06:21:01 AM EST
    I watched the show last night (on some wild impulse to see what KO was saying after the win) and I was absolutely appalled.  The spin is that this is 'normal' political speak.  It sounded pretty vitriolic to me.  His entire conversation with Fineman was basically about how to get Hillary out of the race because she's hurting the party.

    Olber-bully-mann (none / 0) (#91)
    by stefystef on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 07:24:10 AM EST
    Oh, so now Keith is looking for someone to bully Hillary into quitting?  Friggin' coward.

    Big-head Olbermann is only pissed that Hillary bested him on Monday night and he couldn't put her away.  Hillary is better than all those pundit fools and they know it.

    Mr. Olbermann, I knew Edward R. Murrow.  And you, sir, are no Murrow.


    Speaking of Murrow (none / 0) (#117)
    by abfabdem on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 09:47:12 AM EST
    did you check out the Hillary Mad as Hell video on youtube?  It's great if you can last through the first half which is pretty disgusting.  But our gal can take it!!

    KO covered his lack of of follow-up questions (none / 0) (#123)
    by jawbone on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 10:05:33 AM EST
    by saying the interview was limited to 15 minutes--and thus he couldn't do f/up and get in all his questions. Or something.

    Looked kind of weak to me--a good interviewer could have done a lot in 15 minutes.

    Like tighten his own questions to take up less times.

    On Tuesday night, I almost thought Tom Brokaw was going to give us an eye roll when one of KO's questions was taking up so much time!  KO must have caught something in Brokaw's expression bcz he immediately broke off his intro to the question and actually asked the question.


    Change v. Experience (5.00 / 3) (#85)
    by coolit on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 06:37:56 AM EST
    A lot of my friends are Obama friends. When we discuss their differences, they always say that experience is so over rated; They just want change.  

    It is no coincidence that people always say you can only truly learn from making mistakes. Making mistakes makes you stronger, wiser, and better.  It just does.  You learn from your experiences.  That is why experience is far more important, to me, than change.

    And Hillary learned from her mistakes (none / 0) (#118)
    by abfabdem on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 09:49:00 AM EST
    with health care the first go-round.  That's why I believe she will get it done this time.  She has more at stake.  It's personal because of how she got slammed before.  If we have any prayer of getting real reform here, it's with her.

    Well (none / 0) (#135)
    by Steve M on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 11:30:12 AM EST
    This is why there's something of an age gap.

    You don't realize you f'ed things up in your 20s until you're in your 30s and 40s.

    And, for the most part, you don't realize you f'ed things up in your 30s and 40s until you're in your 50s and 60s!

    If you've had enough life experience to make big mistakes and learn from them, it makes you more inclined to value experience.  If you're still young enough to think you have it all figured out, you tend to think experience is overrated.

    There are, of course, plenty of young people who support Hillary and old people who support Obama, but I think this is part of what accounts for the differences.


    Obama next struggles (1.00 / 2) (#82)
    by SAINTIXE56 on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 06:05:08 AM EST
    Firstly, I am an Obama voter. Secondly, I am not stupid. Florida voers though highly illegal had at leats 2 name son their ballots. I consider their election slightly...rigged but way more acceptable than the stalinist Michigan one. So truth be told if Florida and michigan were counted, Obama would be lagging behind. So clearly until those 2 states issues are resolved, he must get his act strighten. First , he needs, he  must, he has no other option, but accepting to debate. Many- O am not saying the clintonistas because they dont relate to him, thewy dont like him fair enough and they have no right t ask hm because there is no relationship with them , but obama cannot deny his own base, his own team, his own foot soldiers this debate. we want we need to se ethe man we believe him get through hrc and stop the nonsense. Pull off the glove manm, fight the fight and knock her out but stop this silly minuet. This is no debating, this is defusing a problem, well some pbs dont defuse and some surgeons have to amputate. how can i - me of your camp, know you have it inside if you are not able to screw HRC, it is easier for any US politician to crush another US politician in what is a civilised  polite debate in front of a US telly and audience than lets say convince PRES putoine or NORTH KOREA. hrc IS ON MY POINT OF VIEW UNTRUST WORTHY , but she is a very mild pb on the road to POTUS , the real bad guys-by the way I dont think she has that in herself. SHE DOES NOT HAVE THE BALLS , THATCHETR HAD THEM against guys like bin laden, she is and Obama is right to slimy too much clintonian to have the guts to stand up to those bad guys, but if obama camnt crush her, he will not bhave it to crush bin laden . so please debate that is democratic process that is what our country democraty is great. by the way if HRC is the nominee, which is fine by fine as long as it is played fair and if she wins all the next states to come , I shall say fair enough she deserve sthe lection...but like many americans I shall be voting for mCcain BECAUS EHE IS TRUSTWORTHY AND HE HAS THE BALLS, PROVED IT IN VIETNAM. AND that is the pb for hillary many, many americans and not limited to republicans find her , not to mention her better half untrustworthy and that will cost her teh lection, mind you that is probably the only way we can get rid of the Clinton holdup on the democrat party . in 2012, we shall have an election where the candidates are not the surrogates of their spouses....

    There was nothing illegal (none / 0) (#92)
    by Josey on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 07:25:55 AM EST
    about the Florida ballot. ALL Dem presidential candidates were on the ballot and the election wasn't rigged. Please inform your buds at DK.

    Hopefully you realize Obama does not want to debate because his empty suit is on display and he can't compete with Hillary's grasp of the issues and needed solutions.

    Oh and please refrain from using disrespectful words to identify Clinton supporters.



    We HAVE (none / 0) (#7)
    by AnninCA on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 10:59:17 PM EST
    to blog about it because it's the key about our Dem race.

    I do not agree, btw, that Indiana couldn't be won by the right Dem.

    I think (5.00 / 1) (#23)
    by nell on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 11:08:20 PM EST
    the only way for IN to go blue would be with Evan Bayh on the ticket...if he were VP, it could go blue. He is very well-liked as a highly successful 2 term governor and senator who won reelection with a huge margin, not to mention a family name that carries weight. I think that would not please a lot of Dems, though I happen to be very fond of the man.

    Read the IN article, noticed that MoDo's peevish (none / 0) (#16)
    by jawbone on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 11:05:01 PM EST
    column, almost an equal opportunity hit piece today, is the Most Emailed article from the NYTimes.

    Pernicious influence is our MoDo.

    IN is almost terra incognita to me politically, but I do know they don't vote D for prez. So, this is another "make or break" state for Hillary just bcz she has to do well there.

    And, oh, that's right, now it's a "tie breaker" state!

    I'm trying to figure if it's more change to vote for a black man or for any woman. I don't know if it's better to be explicit about policies as Hillary is -- or fuzzy as Obama tends to be.

    I just want her to win -- with a decent margin.

    Rahm Emmanuel on Charlie Rose said winner (none / 0) (#25)
    by jawbone on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 11:09:41 PM EST
    of the primary needs to assert right to the nomination, not "parallel park" into the nom. Example was talking about delegate lead, other counts.

    Rahm seemed to be saying the winner needs to go to the group where he or she is weakest, approach them in the right way (whatever that might be), and get votes from a group that hasn't voted for that person heretofore.

    I'm having some trouble trying to apply that advice. Obama actually connects with blue collar white Dems and persuades them his programs will really work for them? Hillary get more youth votes? Hhmmm.

    Too tied to deal with Sphinx-like analysis right now!


    That Might Explain Why Obama Has Suddenly (5.00 / 3) (#66)
    by MO Blue on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 01:32:28 AM EST
    decided to court the senior vote.

    "I have to say if you look at and I know my staff has talked about this: If you look at the numbers, our problem has less to do with white working class voters, the problem is, to the extent there is a problem is with older voters," Obama told reporters. "They are very loyal to sen Clinton. And I think part of that is they've got a track record of voting for not just Sen. Clinton but also her husband."

    "We need to make sure on issues that are important to them -- like prescription drugs or pension and retirement security -- that I've got a strong track record on those issues and very specific plans to make sure that they are getting the kinds of help that they need," he also said. "And if we do that effectively, which you know we have tried to do it in all the states."

    Of course some of his supporters in the comments section graciously went out of their way to help him in this endeavor by saying that seniors should not be allowed to vote or that they should hurry up and die already so young people like themselves could run the country in the right way.


    MOBlue....you've been on HuffPo Haven't ya? (5.00 / 1) (#71)
    by PssttCmere08 on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 01:48:37 AM EST
    Honestly, some of these Obamaholics act as if they are under Obama's spell, not unlike zombies.

    Seriously, though, does Obama actually have a strong track record on anything?  I know he has a strong track record on voting present, but that is about it.


    Also.... (5.00 / 2) (#72)
    by Fabian on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 03:35:43 AM EST
    Older voters are ignorant, uninformed, afraid of change, racist(of course), dried up, irrelevant.....

    Not every comment is like that, but they are easy enough to find.


    Old People Are Racist Was The Major Theme (none / 0) (#108)
    by MO Blue on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 08:15:34 AM EST
    throughout the comments section of the CNN article but that has become a pretty standard accusation about anyone who doesn't support Obama. That they should not be allowed to vote seemed contrary to normal Democratic values and that they dry up and die is extreme by any standards IMO.

    What's really annoying (5.00 / 1) (#110)
    by Fabian on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 08:27:26 AM EST
    is any group claiming a More Informed status over any other group.

    It takes a lot of hard work to research all of the candidates thoroughly and I'm willing to bet that 99% of us haven't done that work.  That means we get our information from the media(including blogs) using selection bias and other types of bias.

    Are we informed?  Sure.  Is it an objective analysis?  Probably not.  Is it a thorough analysis?  No, we cherry pick based on our priorities.

    Speaking of the media bias, I was over at dk.  Here's the pattern after every Obama loss:
    Beat on Hillary
    Beat on Hillary again.
    Beat on Hillary some more.
    Talk about how well Obama did.
    Talk about how well Obama will do in the next primaries.
    Talk about Obama's awesome fundraising.
    Beat on Hillary.
    (Guess which diaries make the rec list?)

    There are some actual critiques of Obama, but that's a dangerous thing to do over there.  My favorite suggestion is that Obama do a grand Speech on some topic to put it to rest.  [snerk!]


    Stephanie Miller's show (5.00 / 1) (#120)
    by abfabdem on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 09:55:02 AM EST
    was self-congratulating that younger voters were not racist like older voters.  She doesn't seem to mind that younger voters are still sexist and msogynistic.  That NEVER seems to come up.

    Ever notice how geezerly Obama's 'young' fans are (5.00 / 1) (#79)
    by Ellie on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 05:07:53 AM EST
    Brand Obama has bamboozled hoards of wheezing, droopy-assed golden agers into thinking they're young, Teh New Coolness if they drink the Obama brand of political soda.

    You can see this on the koolaid drunk bobbleheads who take what they apparently believe are fresh scrubbed (or exquisitly lifted) faces to the air. Only racists and clingly monster people point out that the new youths have been polluting the air waves since the dawn of time.

    Political/old folks joke. Content warning: ontains Ageism(TM))

    Scrum: Sen. McCain, Sen McCain ... do you wear boxers or briefs?

    Sen McCain: Depends.

    (Yeah I'll take the hit.)


    Funny ! (none / 0) (#132)
    by delandjim on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 11:07:32 AM EST
    Obama says "them" (5.00 / 1) (#100)
    by sarany on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 07:49:37 AM EST
    He should learn to start thinking and saying "us" when he talks about people whose votes he is courting. How different would Part 2 of his quote sound if he said, instead:
    We need to make sure on issues that are important to us -- like prescription drugs or pension and retirement security -- that I've got a strong track record on those issues and very specific plans to make sure that all Americans are getting the kinds of help that we need,"
    That may be the crux of his problem. He doesn't think WE, he thinks THEM.

    Obama's pronouns do differ--"us" and (5.00 / 1) (#125)
    by jawbone on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 10:12:03 AM EST
    "we" for him and his followers whom he can depend on-- "Yes, we can" once "you" have seen the light.

    "Them," etc., for voters he can't bring under his spell, who "haven't seen the light."


    The royal "we" (none / 0) (#106)
    by stefystef on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 08:08:05 AM EST
    Obama using "we" alot, but it's really all about "him".

    Obama is using the royal "we" and he has bamboozed people into thinking it's all about them.

    Sorry folks, it's all about Him.


    He may be our candidate (none / 0) (#109)
    by sarany on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 08:16:45 AM EST
    I'm a Hillary supporter, but that's just the reality. If he is our nominee, he should remember that "Change" begins at home, and the first thing he needs to transform is his own exclusionary thinking. I assert that his thinking creeps out into his phrasing and words. I think that when he uses words like "bitter" about people, it's because HE has bitter in his own heart. So, he talks about Change and Hope, and I say "Physician, heal thyself," and cultivate a little real empathy. The people who haven't voted for him had better be just as much "We" and "Us" to him, as his core supporters: the young, AAmericans and well off Dems.

    Pronoun use (none / 0) (#140)
    by sleepingdogs on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 01:38:13 PM EST
    I have noticed he often refers to matters relating to his campaign as "we" and "us,"  yet uses "I" when talking about his presidency.  For instance a hypothetical statement of his might be, "What we have been trying to do is....and that's what I will do as president."  Wish I had a quote (too busy to search for one just now,) but I have noticed lately he does it a lot.  It comes across to me that his campaign is all about being inclusive, but his presidency will be all about him.  But that's just my perception.

    OBama seems to have blinders on.. (5.00 / 1) (#116)
    by FlaDemFem on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 09:45:11 AM EST
    And I think part of that is they've got a track record of voting for not just Sen. Clinton but also her husband."

    And he thinks attacking Bill Clinton's presidency and equating it with Bush l and 2 is the way to court the older voters who voted for Bill twice?? Newsflash for Obama..it isn't. He should read his own rhetoric some time.


    But you have no track record at all (none / 0) (#74)
    by Edgar08 on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 03:49:46 AM EST
    On those issues, Barack.

    That's really the problem there.  But I do understand that when you give a speech about something that giving that speech in and of itself means you then have a track record on that issue.

    You can admit that your campaign has not done well with older voters, and refocus that set of priorities.  But unless you're going to fly back to the senate and start doing some real work, you're still not going to have a track record any time soon.


    Obama's nice subtle way (none / 0) (#94)
    by ccpup on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 07:28:33 AM EST
    of suggesting -- perhaps a bit of mysoginism peeking through? -- that Hillary isn't actually winning on her own merits, but on those of her husband.

    Ugh.  Thank God people are beginning to see through the smoke-and-mirrors.


    Even though he equates (none / 0) (#121)
    by abfabdem on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 09:58:10 AM EST
    the Clinton years with the Bush years.  Yea right, they were soooo similar!  And George HW Bush had the best foreign policy (who can forget him dumping the Somalia problem into Bill's lap).  Obama doesn't seem to know his history (but neither do his supporters).

    Oh Some Of Obama's Supporters Are Very Well (none / 0) (#134)
    by MO Blue on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 11:21:25 AM EST
    versed about history. They just choose to ignore it.

    Indiana will come down to turnout. (none / 0) (#22)
    by halstoon on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 11:08:03 PM EST
    Obama failed to get people out in Philly and the 'burbs like he needed, so he must do better in Gary and Indianapolis, IN. He must also convince the people of Indiana that sometimes change is necessary if you wish to make progress. Doing things the same way all the time has led to their current crisis. Only changing the foundation of your economy will help. That means replacing factory jobs with skills, taking advantage of education, and doing the kind of grassroots work that Obama preaches.

    Call me elitist, but I found that story depressing. There's respecting tradition b/c it works, then there's stubborness. It sounds like Hoosiers may suffer from the latter just a tad. But, hey, I grew up a UK fan so I knew they were a bunch of Woody Boyd hayseeds!! /snark j/k Hoosiers.

    Of course, the Times person could be way off (5.00 / 1) (#28)
    by jawbone on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 11:11:19 PM EST
    base -- and somewhat looking down on the Midwest hayseeds....

    Or (none / 0) (#36)
    by Step Beyond on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 11:19:33 PM EST
    He must also convince the people of Indiana that sometimes change is necessary if you wish to make progress.

    Seems as if their problem might not be with the concept of change. But rather candidates talking about change in broad, sweeping generalities. In which case, trying to convince them that change is necessary would be a very bad strategy.


    I was thinking that as well, bcz that's my (5.00 / 1) (#126)
    by jawbone on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 10:20:17 AM EST
    problem with Obama's "change." Or should that be "Change!"

    I'm not going with someone who just talks about change and can't tell me more details. Been there, done that in life--and usually didn't go well.

    When he dids begin to talk about some issues, he used Republican framing and talking points. I'm leery of that, but IN tends Republican so who knows....

    In general, people are resistant to change--and then the reasons and how become the way to help them change. Sometimes they're bamboozled and hoodwinked, however.


    Turn out, yes! (none / 0) (#62)
    by felizarte on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 01:10:16 AM EST
    and one way to do that is to make sure the leaders and volunteers have "walking around money."  The Obama camp made such a big to do with not alotting funds in Pennsylvania for this.  The result of course was lower turn out than expected.  If he changes policy now, of course he will be criticized because of hypocrisy. His problem will not be with his opponent; it will be his supporters who were sold on his being a 'different kind of politician.'

    The problem with that is.. (none / 0) (#119)
    by FlaDemFem on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 09:52:52 AM EST
    That means replacing factory jobs with skills, taking advantage of education, and doing the kind of grassroots work that Obama preaches.
    All Obama does is preach. He hasn't come up with an actual plan or proposal to get any of this done. He gives high-flying, great sounding speeches, but when asked to quantify his plans he can't because he doesn't have any. Hillary on the other hand, can give chapter and verse on how she will do it and how she will pay for it. Hillary is the one with the grass roots organization already in place, as she showed in PA and other states. She can motivate people to get out and get the job done rather than recruit a lot of cheerleaders who won't follow through after the election. The people committed to Hillary are ready and willing to do the work. The people committed to Obama want it all handed to them by their great leader. Which he can't do because he doesn't know how he is going to get any of it done. Or if he does, he isn't sharing it with anyone.

    Yes to that . . . (none / 0) (#124)
    by abfabdem on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 10:10:10 AM EST
    I have been asking for months, "are we electing a preacher or a President?"

    David Bowie (none / 0) (#59)
    by carrienae on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 12:27:09 AM EST
    Totally love him. Love the vid. Thanks!
    GO HILLARY!!!!

    Off Topic Math (none / 0) (#64)
    by ChuckieTomato on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 01:25:48 AM EST
    Neither candidate will be able to win without superdelegates. Hillary will just need a few more. That's the truth and it's something you'll NEVER hear on TV.

    If superdelegates were intended to follow the elected delegates then why include them at all? Superdelegates are allowed to vote for any candidate for any reason. That's the process.

    It's not mathematically impossible for Hillary to win. It's mathematically impossible for either candidate to win without superdelegates.

    Tell the TRUTH for once instead of spinning for your candidate.

    Obama has acquired a lot of baggage (5.00 / 1) (#96)
    by Josey on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 07:37:27 AM EST
    since he "won" the nomination in March...Wright, Ayers, Rezko, Bitter/Cling-gate, etc. And rightwing talk radio are on Obama's baggage every day.

    "What are we going to change to?" (none / 0) (#127)
    by RonK Seattle on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 10:42:54 AM EST
    "What are we going to change to?" asked Ron O'Bryan

    There it is in a nutshell. Obama and his followers say they are going to do away with the Old Rules of politics. A radical ambition indeed.

    For a "Theory of Change" election, you'd think folks would want to know what new rules the change agent has in mind, and how these new rules will be enforced. Obama doesn't say. The Obamanists don't say. They don't ask, either.

    Collective memory includes many instances of regimes that essayed to Change the Rules by which competing factions advocate for their respective interests. Sad business, that.

    I miss (none / 0) (#131)
    by eric on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 10:58:13 AM EST
    John Edwards.

    Sick of change (none / 0) (#133)
    by AnninCA on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 11:14:16 AM EST
    says to me that the public has noticed that Obama is just a politician, using the same ploys he claims Hillary's "old style" uses.  They are onto him.

    It also says to me that the reason the tide is turning is because Hillary has effectively cut through the absolute love affair with the "new kid on the block" and gotten her message out that we are desperately in need of realistic, practical plans and solutions for this country.

    The "sick of change" as well as demand for a debate says that people are saying to Obama:  Get specific and make it real.

    I don't personally believe he can because he lacks substance and depth.

    This was the part of the article (none / 0) (#136)
    by lilburro on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 12:03:08 PM EST
    that really jumped out at me:

    "volunteering on Wednesday morning in Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton's field office in Kokomo (one of 28 Mrs. Clinton has opened around the state along with Senator Barack Obama's 22, including one just down the street)."

    28 field offices in Indiana???  AFAIK, you never hear about Hillary having MORE field offices than Obama.  Hillary is really investing a lot of resources there.  Serious organizing combined with the demographic makeup of Indiana is making Indiana look pretty good for her IMO.  

    28 offices is a serious number for Hillary.

    This was the part of the article (none / 0) (#137)
    by lilburro on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 12:03:19 PM EST
    that really jumped out at me:

    "volunteering on Wednesday morning in Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton's field office in Kokomo (one of 28 Mrs. Clinton has opened around the state along with Senator Barack Obama's 22, including one just down the street)."

    28 field offices in Indiana???  AFAIK, you never hear about Hillary having MORE field offices than Obama.  Hillary is really investing a lot of resources there.  Serious organizing combined with the demographic makeup of Indiana is making Indiana look pretty good for her IMO.  

    28 offices is a serious number for Hillary.

    no change (none / 0) (#141)
    by diogenes on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 04:10:19 PM EST
    If they want no change from Bush then they'll love to vote for "obliterate Iran" Hillary or "bomb-bomb-bomb Iran" McCain.