In all the back-and-forth about the primaries, superdelegates, the convention, etc., I wonder if we're not missing something crucial: the world economy is headed off a cliff.
Ford Motor Co. is cutting production and won't turn a profit in the foreseeable future. GM has taken almost a $3 billion loss as a result of one minor strike (which it was probably content to wait out). Gasoline prices are now $3.999 per gallon in my Indiana hometown. American Airlines charges $15 for one suitcase. Air France/KLM, Europe's largest carrier, is cutting as fast as it can. My friend the car salesman is wondering if he'll have to file for bankruptcy.
The candidate who addresses the economy as it actually is today is likely to be the next president.
This goes way beyond Sen. Clinton's call to suspend the gas tax for three months (the perfect paradigm for her manipulative campaign, one empty promise after another, Annie Oakley, bang-a bang.)
Oil is headed ever higher; the latest projections say $140 a barrel soon. Is it time for the United States to buy Nigeria and everything in it?
You've heard of corporate takeovers; why not national ones? A little merger fever with some petro-dictators might be a good idea. What would it cost to buy Brazil?
Oil company execs have taken a beating this week on Capitol Hill, but it's an empty ritual; they don't control the price. Speculators have been blamed, but the Secretary of the Treasury says prices are the result of supply and demand. China's demanding more than ever before, and they've got money. U.S. consumers are now having to outbid them, when their money spends just like ours does.
Meanwhile Clueless George, the politician we've all forgotten about, is driving down the value of the dollar. Does anyone remember when Euros were worth less than dollars? Today a Euro costs a buck fifty. I guess I won't be visiting Amsterdam this summer.
We can't go on this way. Everything we do—the entire world economy—depends on moving goods and burning gasoline.
You've heard about the rice shortage in a few places; what happens when it disappears from the grocery where you shop? Better head to the potato aisle while you still can.
I don't mean to be alarmist; the current bubble in oil prices will pop eventually and prices will decline. But this is no way to run an economy. Why does Bush need cheap dollars?
The war in Iraq. You know, that war we've forgotten about too. That little trillion-dollar expenditure is starting to add up to missing rice.
I hope Sen. Obama will pause long enough in his travels to spend a day huddled up with his economic team, then come out with a comprehensive plan for What Will Change On Day One.
My sense is that people are eager to know.
A great plan, communicated by our great speaker, might well be enough to win working class White votes. Clue: they eat potatoes and rice, chicken and beef; they buy gasoline. At least they hope to someday.
The whole country's starting to hurt bad. We need those 5 million new jobs in green technology and infrastructure now, not six months from now.
Get us out of Iraq, Sen. Obama; open up the Alaskan National Wildlife Refuge if you have to. Polar bears have a constituency, but it's dwarfed by homo sapiens in the USA, people who expect to eat.
The political task this year is not just winning the nomination, it's driving Clueless George out.
Just as Barack has quit talking about Hillary, he should put McCain on hiatus. The issue is getting rid of George W. Bush.
Nothing else matters; the man is driving us over a cliff. This is an emergency. Shove him out of the driver's seat, put on the brakes, steer a different direction, keep us from going over the cliff.
Show us now that you're ready to drive this bus, Barack; there's only one way, by throwing Bush under it. He's your opponent; shove him out, make him resign.
Drive his poll numbers so far down that he can't go anywhere; so even White House reporters don't bother to show up. Create the conditions where the old lions of the GOP have to march to the White House and say, "Time's up. You're done." They did it before with Nixon; they'll do it with Bush if only to save themselves.
Drive out Bush and Cheney both, leaving us with a caretaker government under the first woman President: Nancy Pelosi.
You can do it, Barack, and we'll back you; aim higher. Aim for the Presidency itself.++
I am disappointed, more than 24 hours after the California Supreme Court announced its decision on marriage, that there is still nothing on the Obama home page taking note of this.
It is a momentous event for Lesbian and Gay people worldwide. In historical importance it ranks one notch below Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka, the landmark civil rights decision in 1954. Both cases came down to one principle: "separate but equal" is unequal.
All three presidential candidates are doing their best to change the subject. They all issued very brief statements to the mainstream media, saying they support separate, unequal civil unions instead of Gay marriage.
Thus McCain, Clinton and Obama will do nothing to disturb the stigma put on Gay people. This isn't exactly "a new kind of politics," Barack.
I understand not wanting to rock the boat; I don't want the marriage issue turned into the latest cable news trivia obsession either. But there is a way to touch LGBT voters, to reach out to us on a day of great celebration for millions of Gays and Straights alike, without tipping over the boat. An e-mail to supporters would suffice, especially to those of us on the LGBTs for Obama lists, but instead we're getting the same old, tired boasting and fundraising appeals.
You too are playing the same old politics of fear on this issue, when there isn't a dime's worth of difference between you and Hillary on this issue. McCain isn't far away either; whose votes would you lose, the Bigot Caucus's? Man, you're not getting votes from them anyway.
Worse, you're letting progressives down all over the country. Do you think your college students didn't notice your silence? What's your message to Millennials the past 24 hours? You don't have one.
What are your plans for Lesbian and Gay Pride Day? It's coming up in less than a month, and there won't be any primaries left by then, all the voting will be done.
I'll be watching. If all you do is phone it in, I'll know your "new kind of politics" is really just "new and slightly improved from the old kind." Certainly my enthusiasm for your campaign will drop, because I won't see any "fierce urgency of now."
Axelrod isn't the messiah, either. Stop following the old politics of duck and weave and divide!
As a Hoosier I find it fascinating to look at the Indiana results county by county, knowing this state much better than the talking heads on TV. I suppose they were reasonably well-prepared, but the best advice to tourists is still "Eat where the locals eat." Dan Abrams on MSNBC particularly annoyed me…
No one in Indiana was surprised when Lake County waited till midnight to report. They always want to be the kingmakers to prove how important their non-Hoosier county is, so they always wait; the mayors hold back their results till they know what all the other cities have—in case they need to find 300 more votes for their candidate. The longtime mayor of East Chicago finally got ousted for bribing voters in a concrete-pouring scandal; new sidewalks and driveways for supporters, nothing for homeowners who wouldn't trade their votes. Even the Catholic Church went along and got a new parking lot out of it. Lake County is all about bribes and corruption, which is why it isn't Hoosier at all.
Still, Lake is only 26% Black, yet Obama carried 57% of the vote; that's some White people! So what if they're in Chicago's media market? They like the guy.
Clinton won the White rural vote downstate. She was seen as the conservative candidate. The difference in her margin in the rural counties shows a geographic split; 60-40 in the north (2-1 in my home county of Newton, one south of Lake) and up to 75-25 in southern Indiana. I suspect some of that southern support has a racist tinge, as the Clintons repeatedly played the race card. (Maybe that's true in northern rural counties too, but I hope not.)Obama won the cities by amazing margins: Indianapolis better than 2-1. He got a lot of White votes in Marion County, which is only 26% Black. He also picked up two collar counties, Boone narrowly and rich, White, fast-growing Hamilton County 61-39. That Hamilton result stunned every Democrat in the state.Obama won Fort Wayne, the second largest city, with 56%; it's a mostly-White city, only 12% Black, with a Republican mayor. Doesn't fit the pundits' profile; Obama in a landslide.
He dominated the big college towns (Purdue and Indiana) in Tippecanoe and Monroe; that's the youth and faculty vote joining the townies. He won South Bend, with a much smaller university (Notre Dame) and a large industrial base. He won neighboring Elkhart County, which is industrial and agricultural; Elkhart County has $121 million in assessed ag value, ranking #2 in the state.
Down south he won Switzerland County, which is 99% White, 3-1, while next-door neighbor Ohio County (98% White) went 4-1 for Clinton. I don't know anyone with an explanation for that—unless some great volunteers in Switzerland County made the difference.
Obama won rural Steuben County (98% White, Angola's the county seat) in the northeast corner 56-44, another anomaly. Yay, Steuben and Switz!
Thus world-famous Hillary Clinton won backward Indiana by 11,000 votes out of 1.26 million cast, a week after Barack Obama hit rock bottom. Not an impressive showing for the kitchen-sink strategy of the Gentlewoman from Arkansas and New York. You can fool all of the people some of the time, and some of the people all of the time; but you can't fool Hoosiers all of the time. The next President of the United States is Barack Obama.++
It's 2 a.m. Central Time Wednesday morning here in Northwest Indiana, and Sen. Clinton won the state by a hair. Good for her, she ran a smart campaign; not a good campaign, but a smart one. The Clintons are total pros.
Sen. Obama won North Carolina by a landslide, despite Bill Clinton's showing up in every two-bit town in the state; the networks called that contest the minute the polls closed. So all eyes turned to Indiana.
I've said for months that Indiana would decide the nomination. And even though Barack lost narrowly, Hard Hat Hillary lost too.
She had him where she wanted him, on the defensive, Rev. Wright and yadda yadda. "I will fight for you," despite the fact that she and her husband pulled in $109 million since they left the White House. Annie, get your gun.
Hoosiers didn't buy it, even at the lowest point of Obama's campaign. She obviously can't close the deal, even when her opponent is on the ropes.
And now the math becomes inexorable. She cannot win; he cannot lose. Barack Obama will be the Democratic nominee for President of the United States.
I live in a rural county just south of late-reporting Lake. Hillary won here, as she won every rural county. She lost Indianapolis big, Fort Wayne big, South Bend and Elkhart big, Bloomington and Lafayette/West Lafayette big. She lost in Boone County and Hamilton County, White enclaves north of Indy. She lost Lake County, the most racially segregated county in Indiana.
She eked out just enough redneck votes to carry the state; just enough. The candidates split the delegates. Meanwhile Obama's got a commanding lead nationally.
Indiana was her last best chance, but she couldn't close the deal. Hoosiers saw through her quarter-and-a-nickel gas tax giveaway. Her own voters knew she was pandering. So why did they vote for her?
Well, she's a woman, and that's a positive thing. Plus she's White; that's worth some votes in rural Indiana.
Obama almost beat her anyway. Despite his advantage in Northwest Indiana, he had almost no presence in rural areas. And for all his vaunted campaign organization, it's way too reliant on the internet and TV. It doesn't exist on the ground in many places. What kind of candidate runs out of T-shirts and yard signs? It's free advertising!
Outside my polling place in a town of 1800, Obama had two used yard signs, obviously salvaged from Iowa. Hillary had a table of lady volunteers. Obama had no organization in my county, none. I was surprised the weatherbeaten yard signs showed up.
Obama's internet whiz kids need to stop reading their reviews and start making merchandise available to local organizers. There is a definite elitist aspect to Obama's campaign, and it doesn't come from the candidate, but from his over-confident staffers.
They carried Purdue, IU and Notre Dame, and to everyone else they said, "Not the right demographic." Hey kidz, every vote counts the same—and you lost Indiana!
Obama needs to be very careful about whom he hires among his campaign staff for the White House, because I was not the least impressed by his Indiana organization. They sliced and diced this state just like Clinton did, and I find that offensive. College students are not enough to win an election. Neither are Black folk.
Despite all these problems, we have a transcendent candidate. I'm sure he knows the internal shortcomings of his campaign. So much gets left undone; he could have won this state by broader utilization of his volunteers. It's a tribute to the candidate, and not his staff, that he did as well as he did here, losing by a hair. He let the kidz lose Indiana, just like he's let Annie Oakley hang around after her time.
But they've all done just well enough to limp into Denver and the Democratic nomination. The superdelegates will fall Obama's way and victory will be ours in the fall. The close race in Indiana proved that even when Obama is on the ropes, he's in the fight. He's a champion.
Last thought: ditch the phrase, "a war that should never have been authorized and should never have been waged." Substitute "this disastrous war in Iraq that Bush-Cheney lied for, our children are dying for and Hillary Clinton voted for."
That one line would have carried Indiana in a landslide.++
I live in Northwest Indiana, south of Gary and Hammond, on the farthest edge of Chicagoland. I grew up watching Chicago TV; the Cubs are still my baseball team. (I like the White Sox too.) I'm about 100 miles from the Loop and 100 miles from Monument Circle in Indianapolis. This is farm country, "the real Indiana," and my neighbors grow lots and lots of corn.
When I was a kid I used to get up early on Sunday mornings to sell newspapers at the old-time drugstore where my mother was a pharmacist. I had to put the papers together by hand; they arrived by bus in sections. I sold The Indianapolis Star, the Lafayette Journal and Courier, the Chicago Sun-Times and the Chicago Tribune. The Tribune was the biggest paper of all; not my best-seller, but a lot of people wanted their Tribune.
I didn't like it back then; it was this old, conservative Republican mouthpiece, Col. McCormick's house organ, "DEWEY DEFEATS TRUMAN." It was the paper of big business and big money, while the Sun-Times was the scrappy voice of the people. Well, times have changed. Chicago's a completely Democratic town and the Tribune read the writing on the wall. The Trib gradually moved to the center and the Sun-Times moved to the right in response.
So imagine my glee today to read this lead editorial from the Sunday Tribune:
Indiana, Go with ObamaNot since Robert F. Kennedy's short-lived presidential campaign has the first Tuesday in May mattered so much. That's cause for excitement in Indiana, a state that is typically an afterthought in presidential primary politics. With the race between Democrats Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton threatening to last until August's national convention —and the candidates running neck-and-neck in Indiana—Hoosiers have a big role to play in picking the 2008 Democratic nominee.In February, when Illinois voters faced the same choice, this page urged them to support Obama. "He is the Democrat best suited to lead this nation," the editorial said. We remain convinced of that as our Indiana readers head to the polls on Tuesday.One benefit of the prolonged primary campaign is that Americans have had a better look at the candidates than in most years. In a race that many Democrats believe should have been conceded long ago, Obama has maintained his composure against an opponent whose desperation strategy is to hang in there and lob spitballs at the front-runner long enough to do an end-run around voters. At times, the historic contest between the first viable female presidential candidate and the first viable African-American has threatened to devolve into just another ugly race between ordinary pols whose positions on the issues are largely the same. But in recent weeks, Obama's personal and political mettle have been sorely tested— and have been proven.Inflammatory statements made by Rev. Jeremiah Wright, Obama's pastor for 20 years, raised questions about the candidate's long association with a man who views America as irredeemably racist. Obama sought first to make this a teaching moment: In a remarkable speech in Philadelphia, he spoke with grace and eloquence about our nation's racial divisions, defended the minister's right to speak his mind and suggested that understanding the source of such pain is essential to healing. But Wright's rants only escalated. Obama was forced to publicly denounce the man who presided at his wedding, baptized his daughters and supplied the title for his book, "The Audacity of Hope." By putting him in this difficult position, Wright may have unwittingly done Obama a favor. Moved to passionate restatement of his beliefs, Obama reminded a lot of people of what they found so appealing in him in the first place. By contrast, look what we've seen from Hillary Clinton's campaign in recent weeks. Her embellishments about the purported danger of a 1996 trip to Bosnia. Bill Clinton's statement that the Obama campaign "played the race card on me"—and Clinton's later, laughable denial that he had used those words. We've seen a campaign that has sought to tear down its opponent and pander to voters. The Clinton campaign is playing just the kind of politics that Americans say they detest. We need a president who can forge consensus and compromise among ideological foes. Barack Obama is that kind of Democrat; Hillary Clinton is not. In our original endorsement, we noted that "the professional judgment and personal decency with which he has managed himself and his ambition distinguish Barack Obama." His performance in the three months since that editorial have only reinforced that opinion. Indiana Democrats, your choice should be clear: Barack Obama.
Indiana, Go with Obama
In February, when Illinois voters faced the same choice, this page urged them to support Obama. "He is the Democrat best suited to lead this nation," the editorial said. We remain convinced of that as our Indiana readers head to the polls on Tuesday.One benefit of the prolonged primary campaign is that Americans have had a better look at the candidates than in most years. In a race that many Democrats believe should have been conceded long ago, Obama has maintained his composure against an opponent whose desperation strategy is to hang in there and lob spitballs at the front-runner long enough to do an end-run around voters. At times, the historic contest between the first viable female presidential candidate and the first viable African-American has threatened to devolve into just another ugly race between ordinary pols whose positions on the issues are largely the same. But in recent weeks, Obama's personal and political mettle have been sorely tested— and have been proven.
Inflammatory statements made by Rev. Jeremiah Wright, Obama's pastor for 20 years, raised questions about the candidate's long association with a man who views America as irredeemably racist. Obama sought first to make this a teaching moment: In a remarkable speech in Philadelphia, he spoke with grace and eloquence about our nation's racial divisions, defended the minister's right to speak his mind and suggested that understanding the source of such pain is essential to healing. But Wright's rants only escalated. Obama was forced to publicly denounce the man who presided at his wedding, baptized his daughters and supplied the title for his book, "The Audacity of Hope." By putting him in this difficult position, Wright may have unwittingly done Obama a favor. Moved to passionate restatement of his beliefs, Obama reminded a lot of people of what they found so appealing in him in the first place. By contrast, look what we've seen from Hillary Clinton's campaign in recent weeks. Her embellishments about the purported danger of a 1996 trip to Bosnia. Bill Clinton's statement that the Obama campaign "played the race card on me"—and Clinton's later, laughable denial that he had used those words. We've seen a campaign that has sought to tear down its opponent and pander to voters. The Clinton campaign is playing just the kind of politics that Americans say they detest. We need a president who can forge consensus and compromise among ideological foes. Barack Obama is that kind of Democrat; Hillary Clinton is not. In our original endorsement, we noted that "the professional judgment and personal decency with which he has managed himself and his ambition distinguish Barack Obama." His performance in the three months since that editorial have only reinforced that opinion. Indiana Democrats, your choice should be clear: Barack Obama.
Meanwhile, the Post-Tribune of Merrillville and Gary weighed in this way:
Obama Represents Best Hope for ChangeThe buzz word in the race for the Democratic nomination for president has been “change” — change from the failed policies of President Bush, who has little positive to hold on to as he approaches the end of his presidency. Barack Obama has taken the crusade for change a step further, calling for a change in the politics and policies of Washington and the country as a whole. We recommend a vote for Obama because he potentially represents more of what is new than Hillary Clinton, who is part of the inside crowd in Washington. While Obama and Clinton have very similar views on many of the key issues — health care, tax revision and ending the war in Iraq — true change and government reform can be brought about only through the unity of Republicans and Democrats across the country, but particularly on Capitol Hill. Obama, in part because of his newness, represents the best hope for change. Should he be the nominee, Obama’s first task will be to unite the Democratic Party, fractured by many months of acrimonious campaigning. Should he succeed, it bodes well for what he could do for the country, bruised by the economy and the war, and left lacking in confidence of the government. Obama, too, has pledged to take back Washington from the corporate PACs that he says made $470 million in political contributions to those in Washington during the last election cycle. We also are impressed that Obama largely has kept his campaign focused on the future and what he wants to accomplish, rather than attacking Clinton.While Obama still needs to spell out more of the particulars for his plan for change, we see him as his party’s choice to do so. Still, should he not unite the party, then the voters likely won’t give him a chance to lead the country.
Obama Represents Best Hope for Change
The buzz word in the race for the Democratic nomination for president has been “change” — change from the failed policies of President Bush, who has little positive to hold on to as he approaches the end of his presidency.
Barack Obama has taken the crusade for change a step further, calling for a change in the politics and policies of Washington and the country as a whole.
We recommend a vote for Obama because he potentially represents more of what is new than Hillary Clinton, who is part of the inside crowd in Washington.
While Obama and Clinton have very similar views on many of the key issues — health care, tax revision and ending the war in Iraq — true change and government reform can be brought about only through the unity of Republicans and Democrats across the country, but particularly on Capitol Hill.
Obama, in part because of his newness, represents the best hope for change. Should he be the nominee, Obama’s first task will be to unite the Democratic Party, fractured by many months of acrimonious campaigning. Should he succeed, it bodes well for what he could do for the country, bruised by the economy and the war, and left lacking in confidence of the government.
Obama, too, has pledged to take back Washington from the corporate PACs that he says made $470 million in political contributions to those in Washington during the last election cycle. We also are impressed that Obama largely has kept his campaign focused on the future and what he wants to accomplish, rather than attacking Clinton.
While Obama still needs to spell out more of the particulars for his plan for change, we see him as his party’s choice to do so. Still, should he not unite the party, then the voters likely won’t give him a chance to lead the country.
The primary election is in 3 days; where does it stand now? The race is too close to call. Obama leads nationally and insurmountably, but Clinton presses on, dividing the party and the state of Indiana. Meanwhile John McCain has opened an edge against both Democrats—Old Man McCain of "100 more years in Iraq" fame!
Ryan Nees of the must-read Howey Politics Indiana reported May 1 on Evan Bayh's squeeze job on Democratic county chairs and district chairs to fall in line with Hillary Clinton, or else. It's fascinating reading, and one conclusion I get is that Evan Bayh is no Pennsylvania Gov. Ed Rendell, whose party apparatus delivered the Keystone State to Mrs. Clinton.
Since Bayh the Colorless wisely dropped his own presidential bid before it got off the ground, and then jumped on Clinton's turnip truck, he's been pressuring statewide Democrats to endorse her so he can get the veep slot. Heaven knows he needs a mammoth booster shot if he's ever going to become a national figure. (You know that's what he wants; just like George W. Bush, Evan has a need to prove Daddy wrong.)
But what Hoosier Democrat would want Evan Bayh anywhere near the White House? He's the man for whom the "Republicrat" tag was invented.
Turns out, according to the Howey report, that Bayh's Buddies are now threatening to withhold support from on-again, off-again Rep. Baron Hil's re-election campaign for having the audacity to endorse Sen. Obama. Here's the quote from HPI:
The ninth district has become especially volatile. District Chairman Mike Jones sought permission to endorse Clinton from his district’s county chairs at three organizational meetings in a row, getting rebuffed each time, according to Jefferson County Chair Jim Melton. Finally Jones endorsed yesterday anyway, departing on the same day from Baron Hill, the congressman whose interests Jones is primarily tasked with looking after, but who bucked Bayh to announce his endorsement of Obama.Bayh fundraiser Dean Boerste immediately began the retribution against Hill, distributing a mass e-mail to party insiders that angrily accused Hill of "defying all political logic" and threatening "damage to Congressman Hill’s re-election efforts." The message encouraged recipients to call Hill’s office and express their "concerns of [Hill] making any endorsements," advising the congressman to "stay focused on his re-election."
The ninth district has become especially volatile. District Chairman Mike Jones sought permission to endorse Clinton from his district’s county chairs at three organizational meetings in a row, getting rebuffed each time, according to Jefferson County Chair Jim Melton. Finally Jones endorsed yesterday anyway, departing on the same day from Baron Hill, the congressman whose interests Jones is primarily tasked with looking after, but who bucked Bayh to announce his endorsement of Obama.
Bayh fundraiser Dean Boerste immediately began the retribution against Hill, distributing a mass e-mail to party insiders that angrily accused Hill of "defying all political logic" and threatening "damage to Congressman Hill’s re-election efforts." The message encouraged recipients to call Hill’s office and express their "concerns of [Hill] making any endorsements," advising the congressman to "stay focused on his re-election."
Retribution. It's not just Clinton, it's suck-up Evan Bayh too.
But even that wasn't enough to sway Congressman Hill, and it may not be enough for Hoosier Democrats either. This weekend's polls say the presidential primary is tied, and the momentum has swung back to Obama. What could you buy with Hillary's "quarter and a nickel" gas tax pander?
If she loses, so does Bayh. Which reminds me of a post on my personal blog two months ago, warning that he would pull these shenanigans, America be damned.
Face it, Evan, your Daddy (Sen. Birch Bayh) lost in 1976 not because he was too liberal, but because he got beat by a better candidate who understood the post-Watergate times, who said "I will never lie to you." His name was President Jimmy Carter.
This year, it's Barack Obama who understands the times, the people, what's wrong and what can be made right with America again. While Clinton promises four years of bitter partisanship, Obama offers four years of hope, cooperation and problem-solving.
Maybe Hillary will still manage to pull off Indiana; if so it will likely be by the slimmest of margins, no big victory. If she loses here and in North Carolina, she's done.
And Evan Bayh will have his own re-election to worry about.
Three days, folks. Let's end this race in Indiana with some Hoosier common sense.
Since I don't get television (by choice), I don't see the same campaign most Americans do. I see the same images and hear the same soundbites, but I'm in control of my information; I watch, listen, read and think via the internet. Wolf Blitzer doesn't decide the timing or the content, I do.
Last night I read an article in The New York Times about Rev. Wright's latest TV appearances; I thought the article was snide. I watched all of Bill Moyers' long interview with Wright and found him eloquent, smart, worth listening to. But now that I've seen the first 20 minutes of Wright's NAACP speech in Detroit, in which he mocks President Kennedy and President Johnson for their accents, I realize that The Times TV critic was right on the money. Wright thinks this is all about him, and he's making the most of it.
As The Times columnist Bob Herbert points out today, Wright's so devoted to Black people he's willing to destroy the first Black senator with a chance to be president. Wright has turned into a caricature of himself, as Sen. Obama said today.
I am not a Kennedy idolizer. I remember President Kennedy's term differently than many others do; I was 9 years old when he was elected, but I was already tuned in to national news and politics. Kennedy seemed indecisive on civil rights. When he was killed, President Johnson took over, with the smoothest transition in a time of national crisis. For almost a year LBJ had perfect pitch in everything he said and did. And with help from many people, from Martin Luther King Jr. and the thousands of civil rights marchers and activists to Democratic and Republican members of the Senate, LBJ got the Civil Rights Act of 1964 passed. That changed everything.
So when Jeremiah Wright comes around to make fun of two American heroes for how they talked, for their regional accents, I am done with Jeremiah Wright. I don't care what point he was trying to make. I just click the Stop button. I navigate elsewhere.
I knew the Chicago Tribune had video of Sen. Obama denouncing Wright's remarks, so I watched that. I wanted to see how the candidate performs in a time of trial. He was thoughtful and considerate; he could have been a little clearer and more forceful, but he was thinking on his feet. He'll get his words simplified in a half hour. If he needs help, here's my suggestion: "America, just hit the clicker on Rev. Wright."
I was satisfied with Obama's news conference today, so I navigated here to post this, and as soon as I hit Publish, I'll be making another donation. Indiana is going to turn the tide on this nomination. Indiana is going to make Barack Obama president of the United States. Indiana is going for Obama on May 6th, just like we went for Robert Kennedy in 1968, Lyndon Johnson in 1964 and John F. Kennedy in 1960.
It's our gift to America. You can always count on Hoosiers to do the right thing.++
The postman in my small Indiana town is bringing me mail from the two campaigns—or rather from Senator Clinton and the SEIU, which does independent expenditures for Senator Obama. It's really interesting to see the difference in tone between the two sides.
Both the Service Employees' Union pieces highlight education and the war in Iraq, including that Indiana has paid $8 billion so far for George Bush's war, money we don't have available to put into our classrooms or anything else. These mailers have grainy pictures of Bush and nice pix of Obama. I like the fliers' focus on Iraq. I'm one of the 10% of Americans to whom the war is the #1 issue facing this country. I support our troops so much I want 'em home now.
Then there are Sen. Clinton's fliers. The first advertising I got in this campaign came from her. One side was positive for Hillary and the other was negative for Obama.
Then another one arrived today; both sides of it are negative, anti-Obama, blaming him for high gasoline prices. It's got his picture on it, and his name four times; you have to look closely to see it was "Paid for by Hillary Clinton for President." Otherwise her name isn't on it at all.
Well, she's behind, so I suppose she has to attack. But that doesn't mean I appreciate getting this junk, or respect her for sending it.
I've seen only three campaign signs in town so far; all three are for Barack Obama.
From the Associated Press:
SOUTH BEND, Ind. -- Sens. Hillary Rodham Clinton and Barack Obama are running about even in their race to win Indiana's May 6 primary, according to a new statewide poll released Thursday.
The poll commissioned by WSBT-TV in South Bend, the South Bend Tribune, WISH-TV in Indianapolis and WANE-TV in Fort Wayne shows that of 400 likely Democratic primary voters, 49 percent would vote for Clinton and 46 percent would favor Obama if the election were held today. That is within the poll's margin of error of plus or minus 5 percentage points.In other words, the Indiana primary is anybody's ball game right now, said Del Ali of the Rockville, Md.-based Research 2000, which conducted the poll through telephone interviews from March 31 through April 2.Ali said the winner will depend on a variety of factors, including the candidates' abilities to hold on to certain demographic groups.Obama has a solid lead (63 percent to 36 percent) among respondents age 18 to 29. Clinton, meanwhile, holds 60 percent of respondents older than 60 years old, to Obama's 34 percent. Clinton holds a seven-point lead over Obama among voters age 30 to 44, and a six-point lead with voters age 45 to 59.Those are advantages she needs to grow for an Indiana victory, Ali said."If she does very well in that age group, I think she probably wins the primary," he said.An Obama victory could depend on his ability to hold onto black voters. In the survey, 81 percent of black voters said they will support Obama, to Clinton's 16 percent. Black voters made up 12 percent of the survey. Blacks make up about 9 percent of Indiana's population, according to state data."If they're going to be 12 percent-plus coming out in this primary, and he's holding over 80 (percent), he could pull this thing out," Ali said.On issues, the poll showed 39 percent of respondents sayings a candidate's stand on the economy or job creation would most determine their vote. That is followed by 22 percent who said they were most concerned about pulling troops out of Iraq. A fifth of respondents said the cost of health care was their top concern.
Read the rest here.
---
A 3% Clinton lead within the margin of error is a fantastic showing for Obama with more than a month to go! Consider her name recognition vs. his; nobody calls her Hillary Hussein Clinton. Here, in one of the reddest states in America, she should be leading Obama by 20 points—and she's barely ahead.
We don't have to passively sit by while superdelegates decide the nomination. Voters in Pennsylvania, Indiana and North Carolina can drive Clinton out of the race by using our power from the bottom up, voting and delivering our states for Obama. If Clinton can't win Indiana, it will soon be clear, she can't win at all.So let's do it, Hoosiers! Let's decide this thing for the rest of America. Let's create the change we want. Talk to your friends, buy a T-shirt, grab a yard sign, buy a roll of stickers. Let's show Indiana that Barack Obama is unstoppable.
As Gov. Richardson says, "He's a once-in-a-lifetime candidate."
In my lifetime, I want change I can believe in—a candidate who won't let us down, but will lift America up. Obama's got the momentum and I hereby predict: he will carry Indiana.
