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 Obama

Not 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.

 

Meanwhile, the Post-Tribune of Merrillville and Gary weighed in this way:

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.