home

Indy Star Endorses Hillary Clinton

By Big Tent Democrat, Section Elections 2008
Posted on Fri May 02, 2008 at 09:00:19 AM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

The largest newspaper in Indiana has endorsed Hillary Clinton:

Obama offers an attractive vision for the way things could be. He speaks eloquently of hope and change. He connects with voters, many who formerly felt disenfranchised, on a level few political leaders have attained.

Clinton offers a clear-eyed view of the way things are. She offers nuanced positions on how to address the war in Iraq, trade with China and economic expansion. Her depth of knowledge is remarkable.

More...

As impressive as Obama appears, he is still in his first term in the U.S. Senate, and only four years ago was serving as an Illinois state senator. His inexperience in high office is a liability. Clinton, in contrast, is well prepared for the rigors of the White House. She is tough, experienced and realistic about what can and cannot be accomplished on the world stage.

. . . On the Democratic side, Hillary Clinton is the better choice, based on her experience and grasp of major issues, to confront those challenges. She earns The Star's endorsement in Tuesday's primary.

< Looking Ahead: Oregon Is The Test | Why Dems Need A Unity Ticket >

  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    Indy Star Endorses Hillary Clinton | 120 comments (120 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

    Her interview with their editorial board (5.00 / 1) (#1)
    by andgarden on Fri May 02, 2008 at 09:01:19 AM EST
    was very smooth. Jeralyn has the link somewhere further down.

    Awesome. It seems (5.00 / 1) (#2)
    by vicsan on Fri May 02, 2008 at 09:04:36 AM EST
    he's not playing as well in his neighboring state as the talking heads seemed to think he would. He'll do well in Hammond, Gary and Indianapolis, but Hillary will do well in the rest of the state. This is a great endorsement and she deserves it. The woman is smart as a whip and is so much more qualified to be President. The Indy Star made the right decision.

    He's playing well (5.00 / 3) (#5)
    by dianem on Fri May 02, 2008 at 09:08:47 AM EST
    But recent gaffes have highlighted his inexperience, which is making a lot of people see that charisma is simply not enough of a qualification to run the nation. It's not just Wright, either. His performance at the last debate was dismal, and he has been limiting his access to the media, apparently in an attempt to avoid hard questions. He came out against the tax break on gasoline, which may show good economic sense but makes no political sense in a time in which consumer confidence is waning and people are looking for reassuring signs that politicians recognize the severity of the problems facing us.

    Parent
    yup...saw that (5.00 / 2) (#3)
    by white n az on Fri May 02, 2008 at 09:06:19 AM EST
    the tiebreaker state

    You think (1.00 / 1) (#33)
    by riddlerandy on Fri May 02, 2008 at 09:40:50 AM EST
    she will pick up 150 delegates there?

    Parent
    incisive question... (5.00 / 3) (#44)
    by white n az on Fri May 02, 2008 at 09:51:05 AM EST
    thanks

    That's the way to back a loser that's tanking badly to ensure that we lose in November

    Parent

    Sen. Obama made the tiebreaker remark (5.00 / 2) (#51)
    by Democratic Cat on Fri May 02, 2008 at 09:57:23 AM EST
    He probably regrets it now.

    Parent
    We all (none / 0) (#56)
    by AnninCA on Fri May 02, 2008 at 10:00:49 AM EST
    noticed how excited James Carville was to agree it was a tie-breaker.  :)

    Drat

    That story line DIDN'T have legs.  

    Parent

    Whoever wins in Indiana (none / 0) (#64)
    by Democratic Cat on Fri May 02, 2008 at 10:06:07 AM EST
    is sure to revive it in their victory speech!

    Parent
    Surely Michelle Has Kicked Obama (none / 0) (#119)
    by PssttCmere08 on Fri May 02, 2008 at 05:11:24 PM EST
    repeatedly over the "tie-breaker" remark.  It is gonna be a huge "bite you in the butt" moment.

    Parent
    just let one go once in a while guys (5.00 / 1) (#111)
    by diplomatic on Fri May 02, 2008 at 12:49:21 PM EST
    Why do you do this to yourselves?  What was the point of your nasty little comment, really?

    What will be, will be.  If it's already a foregone conclusion that Obama is the nominee why in the world do you put yourself through the agony of coming to these blogs just to educate the little people on math?  Give it a rest.

    Parent

    BlahBlah Delegate Blah Math Blah Wrong Blah N/T (none / 0) (#102)
    by Marvin42 on Fri May 02, 2008 at 10:49:10 AM EST


    Parent
    Gee. (5.00 / 2) (#4)
    by pie on Fri May 02, 2008 at 09:06:32 AM EST
    It managed to compliment both candidates without resorting to nastiness, and it endorsed based on qualifications.

    Very nice.

    Good for her (5.00 / 2) (#7)
    by AnninCA on Fri May 02, 2008 at 09:09:13 AM EST
    although I don't place a lot of stock in paper endorsements.

    Indiana might (none / 0) (#117)
    by JavaCityPal on Fri May 02, 2008 at 04:05:08 PM EST
    since they are about to head for the polls in their state...those people who do lean on those with the focus and the time to study the candidates might be very grateful for the direction.


    Parent
    Wow, this is big (5.00 / 1) (#8)
    by stefystef on Fri May 02, 2008 at 09:11:13 AM EST
    With so many SD going to Obama, the fact that the largest newspaper in IN is going for Clinton is a big catch.

    Obama has been rather hostile to the press of late and I think the coverage of him is starting to show that.  2 months ago, Obama was have garnished all the sympathy in the world about the Rev. Wright situation.  But then glimpses of the "real" Barry Obama started to show and the MSM is wondering, "Who is this guy?"

    Congrads to the Indy Star newspaper for looking at the real issues and which candidate really has the ability to get solutions done in Washington D.C.

    Obama Is Not Helping Himself Giving (none / 0) (#120)
    by PssttCmere08 on Fri May 02, 2008 at 05:16:46 PM EST
    answers again like "we had to struggle to pay our loans, we have to find daycare, I filled my own gas tank, at a press conference...wtf.  It is no wonder The Indy Star didn't want to endorse him; he looked like a clown up there stuttering and stammering like a novice with no facts.

    Parent
    Where's Oprah? (5.00 / 2) (#14)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Fri May 02, 2008 at 09:17:02 AM EST
    One would think she would help him do well in the Illinois neighbor of Indiana.

    (I say this tongue in cheek, because I often self-congratulate that I poo-pooed those on another blog who felt that Oprah was the greatest endorsement in HISTUUUURY!  Now she's in hiding and I laugh.)

    Where are the pro-Obama Kennedys? (5.00 / 1) (#80)
    by DFLer on Fri May 02, 2008 at 10:17:00 AM EST


    Parent
    RFK Jr Says They are wrong.... (none / 0) (#116)
    by JavaCityPal on Fri May 02, 2008 at 04:03:10 PM EST
    interesting little "article" on the ABC news web site today.

    Caroline appeared with Michelle on Larry King, I think, last week or this.

    Parent

    Good for her (5.00 / 2) (#21)
    by nell on Fri May 02, 2008 at 09:26:36 AM EST
    I don't think newspaper endorsements matter much, especially since most are based on who owns the paper. But this one means a bit more to me since they sat down with both candidates. In any case, I don't think voters really care about these things. After all, didn't the Scranton, PA paper endorse Obama and she swept up in that area with 75 percent of the vote...

    Yes they did. (none / 0) (#32)
    by BarnBabe on Fri May 02, 2008 at 09:40:41 AM EST
    And the funny part, they kept giving Hillary more coverage when she was in Scranton.

    Parent
    Newspaper endorsements (none / 0) (#65)
    by AnninCA on Fri May 02, 2008 at 10:06:18 AM EST
    are super local.

    Everyone in the Obama camp got real excited, for example, when La Opinion in CA endorsed him.

    Except....that's not how Latino politics works here.  The mayor of LA, who is Latino, was her chairman.

    Now.......THAT'S an endorsement.

    I said, I don't pay attention to paper endorsements because I can't really know the local scene entirely.  It's symbolic until someone from that area who knows what they are talking about puts it into context.

    Frankly, nobody reads an editorial to reach a decision on how to vote on the presidential election.

    They do on local issues, I think.  Or at least, I sometimes do.  

    Parent

    Obama picked up the support of Mitch (none / 0) (#121)
    by PssttCmere08 on Fri May 02, 2008 at 05:18:57 PM EST
    Daniel's righthand guy, along with two other republicans....what does this mean?

    Parent
    Newspaper endorsements (5.00 / 1) (#26)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Fri May 02, 2008 at 09:31:57 AM EST
    don't win elections.  It's nice that she got this one, and I think the reasoning is sound, but it doesn't matter.  People have proven time and again that they don't vote based on endorsements.

    I agree (5.00 / 2) (#54)
    by BarnBabe on Fri May 02, 2008 at 09:58:13 AM EST
    But they spelled it out nicely as to the difference rather than we endorse hope and change. Everyone wants hope and change for the better but tell us how you are going to do that. Not Ditto on her stuff.

    Parent
    Newspaper Endorsement In This Day And Age (5.00 / 2) (#74)
    by MO Blue on Fri May 02, 2008 at 10:12:32 AM EST
    only have positive PR value. If the media is operating on a level playing field,  the candidate gets positive free air time.

    Parent
    Forget the Endorsement (5.00 / 4) (#68)
    by facta non verba on Fri May 02, 2008 at 10:08:29 AM EST
    Read the comments in the Indy Star Blog. Over 150 comments so far running 3 to 1 in favour of Clinton and quite a few say that they have switched their votes from Obama to Clinton. Wright is not that a big a factor, for some yes but for more it is experience and the belief that Clinton will stand for them. If anything it appears the bitter comments in SF are hurting Obama more. He's seen as out of touch.

    unfortunately Obamabots (none / 0) (#98)
    by tnjen on Fri May 02, 2008 at 10:43:39 AM EST
    are spamming the comment section of the endorsement with links to a tape that I believe is edited of a Clinton adviser calling Indiana voters foul names. At least that's how they're presenting it.

    Parent
    that video (5.00 / 2) (#103)
    by facta non verba on Fri May 02, 2008 at 10:53:53 AM EST
    is a hoax. it is amazing the things Obamabots will stoop to. That's why I worry about life under an Obama Administration. It feels like Germany in the 1930s or America in the 1950s where you have to watch what you say. If you're critical of Obam, you're a racist. It is beyond belief.

    Parent
    I had a co-worker from China (5.00 / 1) (#109)
    by ineedalife on Fri May 02, 2008 at 11:34:44 AM EST
    Her father spent some time in prison because when his office was remodeled he suggested they take down the old, yellowing portrait of Mao. That sort of thing tends to happen in utopian societies based on a personality cult.

    Parent
    Isn't This What We Have Been Watching (none / 0) (#122)
    by PssttCmere08 on Fri May 02, 2008 at 05:21:53 PM EST
    thelast 7+ years?  obama and gwb have too many traits in common for my taste.

    Parent
    For me, and maybe for the people of Indiana (5.00 / 3) (#88)
    by Anne on Fri May 02, 2008 at 10:24:04 AM EST
    who still read the newspaper, it wasn't so much that they endorsed Clinton, but their criteria for choosing her over Obama.  I watched her visit with the editorial board, and as always, I was impressed with the depth of her knowledge and her understanding of the issues, and her ability to converse about them; she doesn't just deliver talking points and mini-stump speeches, she talks with people - throwing in a question that might be down a "side road" does not faze her, because she just plain gets it.  

    I think I have mentioned in passing that a young man who is a friend of my daughter's did two summers of internship in Clinton's Senate office, and even he - Republican son of a long-time Republican family - could not stop talking about how smart she was, how she wanted to know everything about everything, and how her memory for information and her ability to process and analyze that information was gargantuan.  At the same time, after hearing about her brilliance, he was stunned to meet her, to have the opportunity to chat with her and find that she was the most down-to-earth, warm person who did not hold herself on some lofty intellectual plane, removed from real people.

    I have no doubt that Obama is a very intelligent individual, but I have trouble connecting to him when he is not in speech mode; he is cerebral in a way that inhibits his ability to convince me that he really sees us, knows we're real people with real problems.  He can't help who he is, and I don't blame him for being the way he is - there's just such a sense of distance there that makes me uncomfortable.  Plus, I find myself just hating the halting, stop-and-start delivery; it's like he's on the road to somewhere with his comments, but is constantly analyzing in his head if he's on the right road, and if there might not be somewhere else he'd be better off going to.  I've driven behind people like this and it makes me crazy there, too!

    I think Obama is in trouble - and I think Indiana and North Carolina are going to bring that into focus.

    I know (5.00 / 1) (#110)
    by DJ on Fri May 02, 2008 at 12:06:53 PM EST
    it has started to bother me too.  I actually mute the television and use the closed captioning.  

    Parent
    That speech pattern!!!! (4.66 / 3) (#93)
    by soccermom on Fri May 02, 2008 at 10:32:20 AM EST
    If I had to listen to it for four years.......both formal speeches and casual..uh..Imean...uh...talkin'...uh, well,uh, folk to..uh..folk..conver..uh..sation.

    Parent
    Better Hillary than Obama (5.00 / 3) (#99)
    by gandy007 on Fri May 02, 2008 at 10:43:49 AM EST
    It's pretty simple.  Better she than he.

    We can argue til the cows come in about the value of endorsements, but at the margins it may help and certainly does not hurt.

    I guarantee if Obama had gotten the endorsement of the largest, most prestigious newspaper in the state, he would have been personally announcing it as the greatest thing since peanut butter.

    Obviously it would be a sign from God that the great
    state of Indiana had anointed him.

    Not only were her answers (5.00 / 0) (#113)
    by JavaCityPal on Fri May 02, 2008 at 03:50:36 PM EST
    to their questions articulately delivered, she was so gracious and genuine.  I was completely taken in with her personal greetings to each and every person in the room, and her response to the gentleman who said he believed they were more nervous than she. His words were meant to convey they were awestruck by her.

    She does have so much of the same genuine charism that Bill has.  That's the kind of presence that serves our country really well in international relations.

    Sorry, typo (none / 0) (#114)
    by JavaCityPal on Fri May 02, 2008 at 03:51:31 PM EST
    charisma

    Parent
    Red State (1.00 / 0) (#6)
    by HeadScratcher on Fri May 02, 2008 at 09:09:01 AM EST
    Many people on this site have commented that Red States do not matter. You have convinced me. Therefore, Indiana and North Carolina are irrelevant and any commenting on them is hypocritical...

    Unless, of course, it benefits your candidate.

    Assuming you have not (5.00 / 3) (#10)
    by bslev22 on Fri May 02, 2008 at 09:13:33 AM EST
    oversimplified or taken any comments out of comments about Red States, your post suggests that we are all one unified posting unit and are bound to observe the parameters set by what others write in order to avoid being charged by you with something akin to hypocrisy.  Why don't you read individual analyses and offer constructive responses to individuals?  This happens to be a nice place to post opinions without fear of ridicule.  Strange, I know.

    Parent
    Typo--should "comments out of context" (none / 0) (#11)
    by bslev22 on Fri May 02, 2008 at 09:14:08 AM EST


    Parent
    Well said, bslev (none / 0) (#52)
    by BevD on Fri May 02, 2008 at 09:58:07 AM EST
    the fact of the matter is that some states are more important than others, but picking up this endorsement is very helpful and a barometer of which way they'll go in the fall.

    Parent
    Hmm (5.00 / 1) (#12)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri May 02, 2008 at 09:14:26 AM EST
    You'll find that this site covered all the results.

    Look, if you can not do better than this in your commenting, maybe this is not the place for you to discuss politics.

    Normally I would just delete your comment as an obviously trollish attempt to generate acrimony, but you are a long time commenter here who predates the election wars. You are better than that comment.

    Parent

    It's called (5.00 / 0) (#15)
    by pie on Fri May 02, 2008 at 09:18:18 AM EST
    the seven stages of grief.  We all should learn what they are, because some of us will be experiencing them.

    Parent
    I have some breaking news (none / 0) (#63)
    by dotcommodity on Fri May 02, 2008 at 10:04:27 AM EST
    that you might find interesting, here in kossack refugee land...(sorry to interupt)

    Kos wrote a diary at 5pm last night that I just commented on this morning, and now that frontpage diary has been entirely deleted from last night's frontpage...

    Wonder if it's anything I said?

    http://www.dailykos.com/comments/2008/5/1/12248/41565/104#c104

    Parent

    The post is still there? (none / 0) (#97)
    by standingup on Fri May 02, 2008 at 10:39:14 AM EST
    It is directly above mcjoan's post titled "That's a good one."

    Parent
    woops! (none / 0) (#100)
    by dotcommodity on Fri May 02, 2008 at 10:44:40 AM EST
    you are right! my mistakee...

    Parent
    Red states matter (none / 0) (#19)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Fri May 02, 2008 at 09:23:55 AM EST
    to winning the primary.  They matter not a whit to the general.

    The difference between what is said her and what Obama supporters have said is that many of the Obama supporters were saying that because Obama won certain bright red states in the primary and that the turnout was large for a primary, that somehow meant that he'd take the state in the general.

    Nobody is saying anything ridiculous like that here.

    Red states matter only to the primary.  They don't indicate anything for the general.

    Parent

    I'll direct you all to the (none / 0) (#23)
    by pie on Fri May 02, 2008 at 09:28:41 AM EST
    last paragraph posted in the endorsement

    . . . On the Democratic side, Hillary Clinton is the better choice, based on her experience and grasp of major issues, to confront those challenges. She earns The Star's endorsement in Tuesday's primary.

    "On the democratic side."  Let's see who it endorses in the general.

    Parent

    Bingo (none / 0) (#89)
    by DFLer on Fri May 02, 2008 at 10:24:47 AM EST
    Looks like they endorsed Bush in 04

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newspaper_endorsements_in_the_United_States_presidential_election,_2004

    Parent

    Especially THIS primary (none / 0) (#28)
    by BarnBabe on Fri May 02, 2008 at 09:36:11 AM EST
    There was a large turnout but it included crossovers and Dems for a day.We also need to look at those teetering. This election could change the map if the Dems are not careful. And I do not mean red to blue.  

    Parent
    The Dems for a day reminds me (none / 0) (#58)
    by Serene1 on Fri May 02, 2008 at 10:01:36 AM EST
    what happened to all those Dems for a day that Obama camp were wooing in PA. Who did they vote for?

    Parent
    crickets on that one (none / 0) (#79)
    by Stellaaa on Fri May 02, 2008 at 10:15:57 AM EST
    remember his ad?  and how they would register 400,000?  what happened?

    Parent
    Forgot to post (1.00 / 1) (#13)
    by indy33 on Fri May 02, 2008 at 09:16:43 AM EST
    that this is a right leaning newspaper that endorsed Bush in 2004! For a quasi-Obama supporter who claims its the media thats going to get him elected, you might occasionally post some of the hundreds of newspaper endorsements that Obama has got over the primary including majors in Pennsylvania. Havent seen any of those? I also would love to know the opinion of the Talk Left crew on Peter Dreiers article about Sidney Blumenthal and the right wing tactics used by the Clintons. This is where I agree with Joe Andrew when he notices that the Clintons are using the same people, language and tactics as those I spent years defending THEM from. Its pretty sad! Using a guy who cant even keep from driving drunk during the most important days of his campaigns life to attack a fellow democrat on "character" issues. The height of hypocrisy in my book.  

    Good golly (5.00 / 1) (#17)
    by AnninCA on Fri May 02, 2008 at 09:19:56 AM EST
    Obama ran non-stop character-attacking ads.  Nothing subtle about it at all!

    Is that OK?

    Parent

    Obama's only claim to political (5.00 / 2) (#18)
    by pie on Fri May 02, 2008 at 09:23:12 AM EST
    purity is that he's been in it a shorter time.  

    It's politics.  They both want to win.  Campaigns will never be conducted like a Sunday school picnic.

    Parent

    right wing tactics, (5.00 / 5) (#46)
    by kimsaw on Fri May 02, 2008 at 09:53:14 AM EST
    oh you mean how Obama has used right wing talking points about Clinton's divisiveness from the get go. If he didn't know words like polarizing and disingenuous, he'd never have a campaign to begin with. Tell me-how much of a dynamic change  is that?  How much does that prove he's a dem? He can't even follow Reagan's 11th commandment of political loyalties. Whose side is he on?  

    I know who has substance and who doesn't. Don't tell me to go to his website. He should be at the top of his game and be able to answer questions on the trail and in debates. He's sold himself like a new product and I'm not buying into the facade. Why would a candidate selling himself as a good Christian choose to tell falsehoods about Clinton and her policies? Harry and Louise ads are from the republican play book. Clinton has worked with those who have criticized her and gained their respect. She'll even publicly debate them. Obama is all about the game and adjusting to the rules that advance him right or wrong, just ask MI and Fl. How much of a uniter does that make him? He's dismissive of what's right and embraces what's wrong. Rev. Wright's characterization that Obama's a politician nails it.  He plays the game like a lawyerly pol. I know he's real good at hide and seek, not so good at truth or dare. He doesn't tell the truth and he doesn't dare debate. Is that fair and balanced enough?

    Parent

    the article was entirely absurd... (5.00 / 5) (#55)
    by white n az on Fri May 02, 2008 at 09:58:18 AM EST
    Blumenthal is entirely identified as Hillary campaign so he operated completely out in the open - not as the article suggested.

    You get evidence of Dreier's lack of objectivity when he completely misses the fact that it was Obama's camp that sent the photo of Wright at Clinton's prayer breakfast to the media.

    The fact that Dreier fails to make note of Obama's campaign playing the same tactics and the same negative stream daily to the media is simply absurd.

    If Joe Andrew has calculated that Obama will be the nominee and that he's jumping on board with his projected winner, that's fine...it's his decision to make. That he showed little class while doing so...making it a negative on Hillary certainly wasn't an act of party unity.

    Parent

    blogs are required to be fair an balanced? (5.00 / 1) (#107)
    by nellre on Fri May 02, 2008 at 11:09:49 AM EST
    like dailyKos, Huffington Post and TPM?

    Somebody who has some association with Clinton does something you don't like and she gets blamed for it? How is that fair?

    Parent

    "Bush endorsement" (none / 0) (#24)
    by Stellaaa on Fri May 02, 2008 at 09:31:28 AM EST
    Did not see Obama send back the endorsements from other paper that supported Bush in '04?  Anyway, that was GE, they always endorse one from each for the primaries.  

    Parent
    Hmm (none / 0) (#25)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri May 02, 2008 at 09:31:28 AM EST
    Do you know of other newspaper endorsements in Indiana? I saw this one but not any others.

    Parent
    uh - this is the Dem primary (none / 0) (#30)
    by Josey on Fri May 02, 2008 at 09:37:33 AM EST
    and Obama and his supporters whining about "unfairness" is evidence Obama isn't ready for Prime Time.
    Rezko, Auchi, Ayers - Obama's association with these criminals and
    "anti-America" characters is not allowed on Obama blogs but will be great material for the GOP.
    Bashing Blumenthal doesn't change any of that.

    Parent
    The Clinton campaign (none / 0) (#42)
    by indy33 on Fri May 02, 2008 at 09:47:23 AM EST
    is validating these attacks and there ludicrous defense that this is what the Republicans will do is nonsense. I wonder since there are some great legal minds here, could anyone tell me if this defense would hold up in court? Yeah I mugged the guy with a knife but im not guilty , I was just preparing him because the NEXT GUY will pobably have a gun and he will be much scarier! Her attempts to get out oppo research is done purely to destroy Obama for the PRIMARY not to prepare him for the GE. This is the sillest argument i have ever heard.

    Parent
    I think the point (none / 0) (#61)
    by Democratic Cat on Fri May 02, 2008 at 10:03:57 AM EST
    is that if he can't stand up to these attacks in the primary, why in heaven's name would we make him our candidate in the general? I'd like to win in November, so if he's going to wilt, let him wilt now. if he's not, I'd like to know that too.

    And, why do you think things like travelgate, and whitewater aren't really resonating with voters now? Because they are old news. The same way some (not all) of Obama's problems will be old news in the general. It helps to get the garbage out there and dispose of it.

    Parent

    Another Right-Wing Clinton Endorsement (1.00 / 0) (#62)
    by AdrianLesher on Fri May 02, 2008 at 10:04:10 AM EST
    The Indianapolis Star has a long right-wing pedigree. Originally owned by the very conservative Pulliams (Dan Quayle was grandson to publisher Eugene S. Pulliam), it is now a Gannett property. The Indianpolis Star endorsed Bush in 2004, and still has scion Ross Pulliam on its staff.

    I didn't read the full endorsement but (5.00 / 2) (#70)
    by Democratic Cat on Fri May 02, 2008 at 10:09:23 AM EST
    the snippet BTD cites bases its endorsement on her knowledge and experience. In other words, it doesn't say that the right-wing paper agrees with her views on issues. If they are wingers, they probably don't agree with the positions of either Dem candidate on the issues.

    Parent
    So? My right-wing paper endorsed Obama (5.00 / 1) (#73)
    by Joan in VA on Fri May 02, 2008 at 10:11:24 AM EST
    and McCain.

    Parent
    My right wing paper (5.00 / 1) (#84)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Fri May 02, 2008 at 10:20:13 AM EST
    also endorsed Obama.  (Seattle Times, where in 2006, the biggest, most importantest issue facing voters was the horrible "death tax".)

    Most big papers are pretty right wing or are morphing into that.


    Parent

    Heh (5.00 / 5) (#86)
    by Steve M on Fri May 02, 2008 at 10:21:43 AM EST
    Why am I confident you did not write any disdainful comments when right-wing papers like the Las Vegas Review-Journal endorsed Obama?

    Do you even know whether Clinton or Obama has received more endorsements from right-leaning papers?  Of course you don't.

    I'm sure it doesn't matter, because when Republicans endorse Obama it's a sign of his ability to unite people.  Unlike when they endorse Clinton, when those same endorsements become evidence of pure evil.

    Parent

    Every paper (none / 0) (#66)
    by AnninCA on Fri May 02, 2008 at 10:07:00 AM EST
    is now Gannet.  :)

    Parent
    Um, the paper (none / 0) (#67)
    by pie on Fri May 02, 2008 at 10:07:41 AM EST
    is merey endorsing a cadidate in the democratic primary.

    It's not something some of these newspapers in some of these states get the opportunity to do every four years, because primaries seldom last this long.

    Parent

    this morning on Joe (none / 0) (#9)
    by Capt Howdy on Fri May 02, 2008 at 09:13:31 AM EST
    Tweety was talking about this dismissively.  he honestly said something like it didnt matter because it was tepid.
    do you think people really listen to this guy?
    I guess they must right?

    I never (none / 0) (#16)
    by AnninCA on Fri May 02, 2008 at 09:18:43 AM EST
    listen to the commentators, except when they are actually interviewing someone I'm interested in hearing.

    Watching O'Reilly the other night with Hillary was fun.  He interrupted her.  He was rude.  He called names.  But the spirit was light.  She was light, too, while making her points.

    He looked amused.

    Parent

    actually I thought (5.00 / 1) (#27)
    by Capt Howdy on Fri May 02, 2008 at 09:35:48 AM EST
    that was maybe the best interview I had seen this election season.


    Parent
    He focused on substance (none / 0) (#92)
    by gyrfalcon on Fri May 02, 2008 at 10:31:27 AM EST


    Parent
    I wonder (1.00 / 0) (#29)
    by indy33 on Fri May 02, 2008 at 09:36:21 AM EST
    what your comments would be if Obama would have gone on Bill O Reilly of all places and said "Rich people, god bless us". (How dare that elitist) Yes her overall point made sense just like Obamas did but ignorant charges of elitism seem to be appropriate here. Also, I understand that Obama has not been pure, but I would love to see specifics on him using right-wing publications that had previously tried to ruin him and then turn around and use it on someone else! It is sad that both candidates have capitulated to the right wing media so much but in my view it has been a full embrace by Clintons campaign. Where are the e-mails to journalists about her days in the Rose-Law firm , or cattle futures, or Webb Hubbel, or travelgate/whitewater/Lewinsky. When Obama stoops to this then I will put them on equal footing but right now it just looks like desperation from the Clintons.

    Parent
    She said, "God blessed us and ... " (5.00 / 4) (#35)
    by katiebird on Fri May 02, 2008 at 09:41:40 AM EST
    She was talking about why rich people should pay more in taxes.

    Parent
    Watch the video! (none / 0) (#48)
    by indy33 on Fri May 02, 2008 at 09:54:20 AM EST
    I beileive that she WANTED to say blessed, yet it def. was bless. You must have missed the part where I said that her point def. made sense in full context, yet people dont seem to give Obama the benefit of the doubt on here. If you have called him a "latte sipping" "arugula eating" "elitist" then you are one of them. I beilive that both our candidates care for the less privileged, or at least more than the Republicans do. So when any of them are attacked like this for a poor choice of words it is stupid. I just think that the stupidity should be fair if its going to be there.

    Parent
    Uh (5.00 / 2) (#78)
    by Steve M on Fri May 02, 2008 at 10:15:08 AM EST
    "God bless us" is a common interjection where I come from.  Are you actually being serious here?

    Parent
    He got the elitist tag from his speech (none / 0) (#60)
    by Joan in VA on Fri May 02, 2008 at 10:03:26 AM EST
    in SF. He used the same words repeatedly so it's hard to give him the benefit of the doubt. He seemed pretty sure about what he was saying. I do appreciate that you get the meaning of what she said. The latte-arugula stuff is more in jest than criticism.

    Parent
    I don't get it. (none / 0) (#96)
    by feet on earth on Fri May 02, 2008 at 10:38:50 AM EST
    What's wrong with working hard, getting ahead,  making great money and advocating for a tax on the rich-herself included?
    What's wrong with pursuing the American Dream, giving to charity and tax for fairer income distribution via taxation?

    As for Obama, don't worry, his books are going to make him rich as well, when royalty are coming in.  Will he then admit that he is rich?

    Parent

    this is just silly (5.00 / 4) (#37)
    by Capt Howdy on Fri May 02, 2008 at 09:42:19 AM EST
    FOX has been more fair to Hillary than MSNBC has and   she did an interview there.
    this idea that FOXs bias is bad but MSNBCs is fine seems a little disconnected from reality to me.

    Parent
    Obama (5.00 / 3) (#41)
    by AnninCA on Fri May 02, 2008 at 09:47:11 AM EST
    has some very good moments and has demonstrated those to me.

    I'm sorry, but I'm not an Obama-Hater.

    I'm very content in one sense.  I was incensed early on when people actually thought he wasn't a Chicago politician.

    Everyone has caught up now.  We're all on the same page.  He ain't no "change in Washington."

    Parent

    CDS symptoms (5.00 / 2) (#45)
    by Stellaaa on Fri May 02, 2008 at 09:52:49 AM EST
    I was stunned how the O'Bamis missed the obvious implication of what she said.  I wondered over to DU and they were going nuts over the "Rich people god bless us", have you people lost all language skills?   She made a perfect point that hit it on the head.  Rich people should be paying the taxes they paid in the 90's, increase their taxes.  Are you people that deranged?  

    Parent
    I also see (none / 0) (#59)
    by indy33 on Fri May 02, 2008 at 10:03:07 AM EST
    where the offensive language of messianism, cults and "kool aid drinkers" comes from. The Clinton campaign itself. Sidney Blumenthal jumped all over this and tried to pump the media with stories comparing Obama supporters with the cultists that "drank the kool-aid" of Jim Jones and died in Guyana. I know that most of you think this is a harmless way to insult people that support Obama, but to me, being compared to a religously deranged cultist who will follow my leader to death is pretty offensive. If you have some other explaination as to what is implied by "kool-aid drinker" then I would love to hear it.

    Parent
    actaully it comes (5.00 / 4) (#72)
    by Capt Howdy on Fri May 02, 2008 at 10:11:20 AM EST
    from cult like behavior


    Parent
    Stick to the rich comment. (5.00 / 2) (#76)
    by Stellaaa on Fri May 02, 2008 at 10:14:27 AM EST
    How could you think that she was not being sarcastic?  How did you think she was literally blessing the rich?  How could a whole group of Obama fans hear it so wrong?  Explain , please explain how she did not say in that segment that: Rich people like herself and O'Reilly are doing find and should be taxed more.  I have never heard a politician be that honest about taxes.  I don't understand that if it's not CDS how you people heard something completely different.  

    Parent
    READ MY POST! (none / 0) (#101)
    by indy33 on Fri May 02, 2008 at 10:48:32 AM EST
    I am NOT saying she is an elitist period! I am saying that if Obama had said the same thing then people on this site would be up in arms calling him an elitist. This is an age-old method of discrediting our Democratic candidates and its crap. The Democrats have alwat=ys been the party of the people and just because we are in a heated primary doesnt mean we have to level nonsense accusations at our candidates. The purpose of my post was to point out how stupid it is too call either one of the Dem. candidates "elitist" when John McCain and his support for the Bush tax cuts are out there. I know what she said and I AGREE WITH HER. Im just saying that by taking a few words from a interview or off the cuff speechs doesnt define EITHER one of them. They are BOTH on the right side of the "elitist" argument.  

    Parent
    The only ones saying it's elitist (none / 0) (#105)
    by Stellaaa on Fri May 02, 2008 at 11:04:26 AM EST
    are the Obama supporters.  If Obama said the same thing face on, I would support him.  

    Parent
    I think I originated it (5.00 / 4) (#81)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Fri May 02, 2008 at 10:17:34 AM EST
    I honestly looked at the way they were seeing Obama as completely flawless (which politicians AREN'T), coupled with the ridiculous Godlike Glow on his web site (including the implication that the states he won were blessed by God, hence the glow), and I went WOW, this is like "Brotherlove's traveling salvation show" (a Neil Diamond reference).  

    And I thought ICK, these people look on him like a Messiah.  I then walked, no RAN, to Hillary. I don't want in any way to be involved with something so disgusting.

    Within a week or so, many people were making the Messiah reference. I'm sure it's due to something I said. So, I take full credit.

    So don't blame Blumenthal.  I'm your culprit.  It's on me.

    Parent

    Scuse me it was me. (5.00 / 2) (#94)
    by Stellaaa on Fri May 02, 2008 at 10:32:25 AM EST
    We don't wait for "our leader" to tell us what to think.  
    And please look at the German magazine Der Spiegel cover...from sometime in February or was it January.  

    Parent
    Maybe I originated it! (none / 0) (#118)
    by catfish on Fri May 02, 2008 at 04:42:23 PM EST
    I too observed a messiah complex in Obama and in his speeches. Later I saw it mentioned in the news media. Never have I seen the Clinton campaign say this (Blumenthal I think of him as MSM.)

    What was so odd is how angry it made people. To say one man has a messiah complex does not imply that people voting for him see him as a messiah.

    Then I subscribed to his email and it all started to make sense: "when they attack me, they attack you too" was a common refrain. One employed by cult leaders. Why did that not piss people off? No, Obama, they're not attacking me. You're the one with the messiah complex.

    He's mellowed on the messiah talk lately.

    Parent

    I don't think Sidney B (5.00 / 3) (#104)
    by Serene1 on Fri May 02, 2008 at 11:01:02 AM EST
    deserves the credit for the same.

    The messianic behaviour was commented upon by I think MSM after seeing the various faintings and swoonings of the various initial Obama gatherings which included such gems of messianic speech like - We are the ones we have been waiting for.

    The cultist behaviour was commented upon by sensible liberal bloggers like this site and other non pro Obama rose tinted glass wearing sites who at various points noted that sites like huffPo and daily kos were acting like echo chambers of Obama talking points.

    And the kool aid comment came from the commenters who noticed that they were being derided by the pro Obama commenters as un cool, un educated, non young and so on and so forth.

    If Sidney B deserves credit for anything then it is just that he followed closely what was happening in the net.

    Parent

    Are you people that deranged? (none / 0) (#71)
    by Capt Howdy on Fri May 02, 2008 at 10:09:37 AM EST
    rhetorical question, right?

    Parent
    Yet (5.00 / 4) (#47)
    by pie on Fri May 02, 2008 at 09:53:22 AM EST
    people keep going to the polls and voting for both of them.

    Hillary has had to climb back from years of smear tactics, lies, and attacks because she's an uppity woman.  She's even managed to win over some of the people who used to consider her and her husband the worst people in the world.  When they listened to her, instead of her enemies, they suddenly saw her in a different light.  She won over the New York voters and she's doing the same thing across the country.

    Don't talk to me about the tactics used against poor Obama.  She's seen it all and is still standing.  I have nothing but the greatest admiration for her.

    Parent

    You don't know what "elitist (5.00 / 3) (#95)
    by gyrfalcon on Fri May 02, 2008 at 10:33:43 AM EST
    means, obviously.  It has nothing to do with how much money you have, it's about attitude.  Obama's attitude is, sorry, elitist, his supporters massively moreso.


    Parent
    God BLESS-ED us. Get it right. (none / 0) (#39)
    by rooge04 on Fri May 02, 2008 at 09:44:12 AM EST
    Lest you keep passing around mis-information and mis-truths in an attempt to smear Hillary with the Elitist brush Obama seems to paint himself with so well.

    Parent
    Obama go on O'Reilly I'd love to see that. (none / 0) (#85)
    by kimsaw on Fri May 02, 2008 at 10:21:38 AM EST
    You've taken her comments out of context. She was reflecting on shared responsibility and shared prosperity. No one here would have attacked Obama for a remark in that context. With the blessing of God comes certain responsibility to others and she has no problem raising taxes on the wealthy within reason because of that principle. Clinton has not capitulated she knows when to stand her ground and when to be bipartisan. She hasn't voted present or dodge recent votes like her opponent. Just stating the facts based on Obama's actions.

    Parent
    Should be mandatory (none / 0) (#115)
    by JavaCityPal on Fri May 02, 2008 at 03:55:35 PM EST
    ...and, it would be the end of the trail

    Parent
    Passing Indy33 A Chill Pill and Some (none / 0) (#123)
    by PssttCmere08 on Fri May 02, 2008 at 05:29:28 PM EST
    common sense.  

    Parent
    She really was great (none / 0) (#38)
    by riddlerandy on Fri May 02, 2008 at 09:43:11 AM EST
    Although it still bugs me that she and Obama legitimized Fox

    Parent
    MSNBC and CNN (5.00 / 8) (#40)
    by Capt Howdy on Fri May 02, 2008 at 09:46:53 AM EST
    legitimized FOX

    Parent
    Oh, ouch! (5.00 / 2) (#49)
    by pie on Fri May 02, 2008 at 09:54:21 AM EST
    But spot on.

    Parent
    People watch Fox (5.00 / 0) (#53)
    by Stellaaa on Fri May 02, 2008 at 09:58:11 AM EST
    I found the boycott idiotic.  Obviously Fox has the highest ratings.  Fox audience  only hear the "other side" from the boycott.   It makes sense that the Dems go to the people.  It's one of those adolescent political moves that hurts you.  Hillary did a great job, in his face and did not flinch.  

    Parent
    Amen (5.00 / 3) (#83)
    by AnninCA on Fri May 02, 2008 at 10:18:36 AM EST
    How dumb.  We're going to solve problems by not understanding the other side?

    Rove told O'Reilly to ask Hillary why the heck she didn't point out that she's been practicing "bi-partisanship" as a senator.

    Obama talks.  Hillary walks.

    She did try to point that out.  Nobody was interested.

    Clearly, the "talking points" aren't really all that relevant sometimes.  One has to see what really matters.

    I personally think you need to stand firm on principle and yet not hate one another personally.  That's why Newt is fond of Hillary.

    I think Obama is almost opposite.  He doesn't stand firm but he has generated Hillary Hate.

    That's opposte of his stated goal.

    He's showing bad judgment.

    I think Obama has a "people problem."

    He doesn't get it.

    Parent

    People get it (5.00 / 2) (#91)
    by Stellaaa on Fri May 02, 2008 at 10:29:42 AM EST
    Obama was just a message. Unity and clean politics.  Well, both of those are falling apart and people are asking, gee, what is left?  I tell you it's a disaster if he wins.  

    Parent
    only the ones who enjoy his leg tingling. (none / 0) (#20)
    by kimsaw on Fri May 02, 2008 at 09:24:16 AM EST
    He's gone from spitting to foaming.

    Parent
    Tweety (none / 0) (#43)
    by stefystef on Fri May 02, 2008 at 09:49:04 AM EST
    is getting desperate.

    I wonder what Matthews' tingling leg is telling him now?

    Parent

    Yes, people listen to him (none / 0) (#57)
    by BevD on Fri May 02, 2008 at 10:01:18 AM EST
    and those people happen to be other news people.  That's what makes his particular brand of stupidity so dangerous.

    Parent
    Well, that settles it... (none / 0) (#22)
    by Salo on Fri May 02, 2008 at 09:28:37 AM EST
    Best Gnoos Evah!

    Recall the heralded newspapaer endorsements in California.

    Good but maybe not good (none / 0) (#31)
    by Saul on Fri May 02, 2008 at 09:39:24 AM EST
    I glad she got the endorsement but I remember in Texas Obama got the endorsement of all the major papers except the Corpus Christi paper.  The University of Texas newspaper was the only major endorsement for Hilary besides the Corpus Christi paper.  Maybe newspaper endorsements carry more wait  in some states vs other states.  

    Very insightful and sums up the race very well (none / 0) (#34)
    by Salt on Fri May 02, 2008 at 09:41:33 AM EST

    He connects with voters, many who formerly felt  disenfranchised.............

    WOW I agree

    Obama Goes After Republicans In Indiana (none / 0) (#36)
    by nell on Fri May 02, 2008 at 09:41:50 AM EST
    BTD, I am sorry, I know this is off topic but it is Indiana related!

    Obama Woos Republicans in Indiana
    Sen. Barack Obama's campaign "is applying a grass-roots organizational zeal to courting Republicans" in Indiana, "much as it has done for younger voters in previous contests," according to the Wall Street Journal.

    Later today, Obama's campaign "will introduce three prominent Republicans who are supporting the campaign: John Clark, a top aide to Republican Gov. Mitch Daniels, who is running unopposed in the primary; William Ruckelshaus, a former Nixon administration lawyer whose family has deep ties to the state; and Jim Benham, president of the state's National Farmers Union."

    http://tinyurl.com/6px4pk

    More love for Repubs-great! (none / 0) (#69)
    by Joan in VA on Fri May 02, 2008 at 10:09:18 AM EST


    Parent
    Strange (none / 0) (#82)
    by Steve M on Fri May 02, 2008 at 10:17:47 AM EST
    I understand why it would be favorable to tout, say, an endorsement from Sen. Lugar, but why the heck toot your horn over an endorsement from some random aide to the Republican governor?  They must have run out of Kennedys or something.

    Parent
    Obama hurting dem chances (none / 0) (#125)
    by pluege on Fri May 02, 2008 at 07:35:49 PM EST
    this Obama primary tactic of courting republicans is a total loser. Democrats should be incensed that Obama is dragging out the primary season with a tactic that can't possibly be successful in November.

    Parent
    I didn't hear that on NPR (none / 0) (#87)
    by NWHiker on Fri May 02, 2008 at 10:22:25 AM EST
    All they seem to want to talk about this morning is Joe Andrews and their interview with him.

    I'm also of those who doesn't think newspaper endorsements are all that important, but it's still good to get them.

    Still I remember when paper's endorsing Obama made t he news.

    A very nice way of saying (none / 0) (#90)
    by blogtopus on Fri May 02, 2008 at 10:28:58 AM EST
    That Obama would make a good VP; it would give him a chance to see the big job in better perspective, and it gives him an important role that he can't just toss aside for the next bigger thing. Unless...

    Conspiracy theories lie in that direction; beware!

    "nuanced" (none / 0) (#112)
    by diogenes on Fri May 02, 2008 at 02:18:05 PM EST
    As in "obliterate Iran" ???

    Indi Star gets it exactly right. (none / 0) (#124)
    by pluege on Fri May 02, 2008 at 07:31:51 PM EST
    Obama has great potential, but its too early, he needs more work. HRC is sometimes too close to the inside, but has the necessary skills now to get things done. HRC as preznit and Obama as VP make perfect sense and winning ticket.

    Indy Star Endorses Hillary Clinton | 120 comments (120 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment