home

Tonight's Jefferson-Jackson Dinner in Indiana

By Jeralyn, Section Elections 2008
Posted on Sun May 04, 2008 at 06:21:00 PM EST
Tags: Indiana '08 (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

Update: A poll of Northwest Indiana Democrats (Lake and Porter Counties) has Hillary ahead by 13 points- 46% to 33%.

Northwest Indiana is the state's second-largest pool of Democratic voters, behind Marion County. Lake County has the state’s highest concentration of Democrats, statistics show.

"If you want to be able to win in Indiana, you have to turn out the vote in Northwest Indiana," Eisenstein said. "This is the Democratic stronghold of the state."

***

It's another Jefferson Jackson Day Dinner tonight, this time in Indiana. Both Hillary and Obama will speak, at different times.

Update: 6:25 pm MT: Fox is about to broadcast Hillary's speech. Unbelievable that Geraldo has Jeanine Pirro, who ran unsuccessfully against Hillary for the Senate, as an analyst.

Some things to keep in mind about Indiana: [More....]

No Democratic presidential nominee has won Indiana since Lyndon Johnson in 1964. Republicans control the governor's office -- and all statewide elected offices, for that matter -- as well as the state Senate. The GOP is confident John McCain will carry Indiana in November.

....Republican Mitch Daniels was elected governor in 2004, ending 16 years of Democratic control of the governor's office. That same year, Republicans took control of the state House, which Democrats had narrowly controlled for eight consecutive years.

< Polls Can Be Funny | "60 Minutes" Tonight Features Innocence Project and Wrongfully Convicted >

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

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    Tonight's Jefferson-Jackson Dinner in Indiana | 103 comments (103 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

    The Indiana House is actually (5.00 / 2) (#1)
    by andgarden on Sun May 04, 2008 at 06:15:06 PM EST
    now back under Democratic control as of 2007.

    Hillary is going to take Indiana (5.00 / 1) (#2)
    by Militarytracy on Sun May 04, 2008 at 06:23:58 PM EST
    She shouldn't be able to.  It is a red state, it should have been Obama's simply out of red state hatred of the Clintons but a lot has happened in the past two months.  Red states don't like bullying people shoving things down their throats any better than anyone else and that is what Obama surrogates and supporters have become.  The chickens have come home to roost.  And Karma is a....... a a something that a lot of Obama supporters call Hillary at every given and not so given opportunity.  Karma is a something that many capable confident competent assertive women get called every single day.

    So, Militarytracy aka Karma, I hope you are (5.00 / 2) (#5)
    by PssttCmere08 on Sun May 04, 2008 at 06:26:42 PM EST
    right on the money with this call.  I, too, have that same feeling.  Don't want to get too crazy, but I think Hillary wining NC is a possibility also.

    Parent
    I'm thinking she's going to lose N.C. (4.50 / 2) (#10)
    by Militarytracy on Sun May 04, 2008 at 06:30:55 PM EST
    but Obama is going to feel the heat of her breath on the back of his neck during this entire last lap.  Obama doesn't seem to be a come back kid and heated breath on the back of his neck seems to sap him utterly and is not an energizer for him.

    Parent
    Here's an on the ground (5.00 / 2) (#23)
    by oculus on Sun May 04, 2008 at 06:48:31 PM EST
    report from a Republican friend re Hendersonville, NC, which is near Asheville:

    As of 30 April, early voters were

    Democrats     2,198
    Republicans   2,203
    Independents  1,920---
                                       1,427 Democrats
                                          482 Republicans

    So Hillary will  swing even more votes Indies to Democrats. In my district, very Republican, the real local elections are in the primaries as the Democrats are inert.

    Parent

    Ummm. What about NV? (none / 0) (#14)
    by oculus on Sun May 04, 2008 at 06:37:06 PM EST


    Parent
    You mean after which they (none / 0) (#17)
    by nycstray on Sun May 04, 2008 at 06:38:57 PM EST
    started playing the race card?

    Parent
    'Way before -- that began after NH (none / 0) (#89)
    by Cream City on Sun May 04, 2008 at 09:10:39 PM EST
    at least that national media could see, as they started to take Obama seriously.  Actually, it began even in Iowa, before the caucus, for those of us who were watching the local media there.

    Parent
    Help me understand why she shouldn't be able to (2.33 / 3) (#21)
    by Denni on Sun May 04, 2008 at 06:47:22 PM EST
    take the state.  She was ALWAYS favored in this state to win.  This is a Democratic Primary, not a general election.  Republicans aren't running out in large number to cross over AGAINST Clinton.  In fact, Limbaugh has been leading his listeners to cross over and vote FOR HER.

    Until Obama supporters start calling minority voters and telling them the date of the primaries have been moved, or that they're no longer registered, I'm going to have to say  that Obama supporters aren't the group to be concerned about.

    Hopefully the tax hike plan, the one that 'don't need no stinkin' economists signing on' will come up in conversation.

    Parent

    Interesting (5.00 / 2) (#25)
    by Steve M on Sun May 04, 2008 at 06:54:22 PM EST
    Why did the Obama campaign's own spreadsheet predict he would win the state, if she's always been favored to win?  They predicted the winner in every other state correctly.

    Parent
    maybe a new talking point? (5.00 / 1) (#27)
    by RalphB on Sun May 04, 2008 at 06:57:57 PM EST
    didn't really lose even though he got less votes  :-)

    Parent
    Obama didn't pander, before he did :-) (5.00 / 1) (#30)
    by RalphB on Sun May 04, 2008 at 07:06:22 PM EST
    Jerome has an Obama ad on the tax holday over at mydd.  I laughed out loud at the end of it.


    Parent
    No This Was Always Considered An Obama Win (5.00 / 2) (#28)
    by MO Blue on Sun May 04, 2008 at 07:01:03 PM EST
    He was up substantially in the polls as few months back. He even has it on his spreadsheet as a win.

    Parent
    No (5.00 / 3) (#29)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun May 04, 2008 at 07:01:11 PM EST
    Obama was always favored to take it.

    Parent
    Wrong (5.00 / 1) (#78)
    by sas on Sun May 04, 2008 at 08:41:37 PM EST
    Obama was favored by a half dozen to win Indiana.  That is also what his internals showed too.

    Now she is ahead,  and that is big.  

    Parent

    Good, But Mitch Daniels Is A Charlatan And (5.00 / 1) (#3)
    by PssttCmere08 on Sun May 04, 2008 at 06:24:35 PM EST
    carried water for gwb.  One thing I am wondering is why obama had three fairly powerful republicans coming out in support of him?

    It's because he's a uniter (5.00 / 4) (#6)
    by Militarytracy on Sun May 04, 2008 at 06:27:25 PM EST
    He's going to lead us to a kinder gentler nation by going easy on the robber barons.

    Parent
    To encourage GOP crossover to Obama (5.00 / 1) (#9)
    by Cream City on Sun May 04, 2008 at 06:29:50 PM EST
    according to a relative there.  Here we go again.

    Parent
    I Think They Are Wasting Their Time I.E. Unity (none / 0) (#13)
    by PssttCmere08 on Sun May 04, 2008 at 06:35:55 PM EST
    But I can understand them wanting to run against obama instead of Hillary, as they will be able to annihilate obama.

    Parent
    So why do the likes of (5.00 / 1) (#20)
    by Denni on Sun May 04, 2008 at 06:43:25 PM EST
    Ann Coulter, Sean Hannity, Rush Limbaugh, Bill O'Reilly, and Joe Scarborough push a Clinton candidacy!?!?!?  Why are these people constantly using their positions to try to scare voters away from Obama if they want to run against him and think HE'S the weaker candidate?

    Why does Rush Limbaugh's 'Operation Chaos' focus on getting Republicans to crossover in Democratic Primaries and vote Clinton?

    How does any of that help Obama in the General Election?!?!?

    Parent

    Scarborough (5.00 / 6) (#31)
    by stillife on Sun May 04, 2008 at 07:07:19 PM EST
    does not come off as a Republican, at least in this election.  He seems to genuinely admire Hillary.  Hannity does not push Hillary - he's on Obama's case 24/7, but I'm sure he's for McCain.  O'Reilly interviewed her - BFD.  He's offered the same thing to Obama.

    Coulter and Limbaugh are nut jobs, plain and simple.  Although I have to say that Limbaugh's "Operation Chaos" is remarkably similar to Obama's "Dem for a Day".

    Parent

    I can't believe how obvious the answer is - (5.00 / 3) (#42)
    by Anne on Sun May 04, 2008 at 07:46:24 PM EST
    it's a whole lot easier - and sadly, acceptable - to be sexist than it is to be racist, which means having Hillay as a target will be ever so much more fun for the likes of Coulter and Limbaugh and the rest - there is nothing they would have to tippy-toe around like they will if Obama is the nominee.

    Parent
    GOP will not tiptoe around race (none / 0) (#45)
    by RalphB on Sun May 04, 2008 at 07:50:46 PM EST
    there's absolutely no reason for them to do that.

    Parent
    why should they? (5.00 / 3) (#53)
    by p lukasiak on Sun May 04, 2008 at 08:09:13 PM EST
    I mean, they can just replay all pro-Obama punditry about how Obama isn't connecting to working class white voters, then play the pro-Obama punditry that is talking about alienating the black voter, and turn Obama into the "Quota nominee".  

    As to why all these right-wingers are (ostensibly) supporting Clinton -- its a no lose situation for them.  If she loses the nomination anyway, the Republican wins in November.  If she gets the nomination they will all immediately jump back on the McCain bandwagon -- and if he wins all will be forgotten.  If McCain loses to Clinton, they can crow that they were right all along about McCain being the wrong guy for the GOP... plus they get Hillary Clinton to beat up on for fourt years!

    Parent

    Rush's reasons (none / 0) (#22)
    by wasabi on Sun May 04, 2008 at 06:48:16 PM EST
    Rush wants the Democrats to be at each other's throats for as long as possible.  When he sees no advantage to push Hillary in the primaries, his supporters will vote for Obama or not bother voting.

    Parent
    because they think (none / 0) (#26)
    by isaac on Sun May 04, 2008 at 06:57:37 PM EST
    obama has it wrapped up and want hillary to stay in and give them cover to bloody him up, use resources and divert fire from mccain

    Parent
    Coulter has said (none / 0) (#32)
    by JavaCityPal on Sun May 04, 2008 at 07:15:46 PM EST
    she will vote for the most conservative candidate available and she's it.  AC hates McCain.

    Parent
    Jeez Denni, Calm Down....Read the posts (none / 0) (#58)
    by PssttCmere08 on Sun May 04, 2008 at 08:16:02 PM EST
    below yours.  I couldn't have said it better.  But I do believe the repubs are salivating over obama because he will be easier to beat, pure and simple.

    Parent
    my understanding is... (none / 0) (#62)
    by white n az on Sun May 04, 2008 at 08:24:24 PM EST
    that Democrats pick the Democratic candidates and they don't care whether Republicans salivate over Democratic candidates.

    Parent
    If you (none / 0) (#73)
    by sas on Sun May 04, 2008 at 08:36:24 PM EST
    visit the Republican sites as I do, you will read that they definitely think Obama will be easier to beat.  

    They think Democrats are DUMB for nominating him, as he is demonstrably weaker.

    Parent

    Read Time magazine (none / 0) (#80)
    by Kathy on Sun May 04, 2008 at 08:46:33 PM EST
    I won't quote it here again, but Newt Gingrich makes it clear that Clinton is much tougher for McCain.  With Obama, it's a crapshoot.

    Parent
    So do more than half the democrats (none / 0) (#88)
    by JavaCityPal on Sun May 04, 2008 at 09:09:11 PM EST
    There is the Republican cross-over group that actually can't handle a continuation of these past 7+ years who are voting Hillary, too.


    Parent
    Why? Because some of the GOP idjits (none / 0) (#85)
    by Cream City on Sun May 04, 2008 at 09:03:03 PM EST
    are saying that keeping Clinton it prolongs the primary season for the Dems and see that as better for McCain -- limiting the time that Dems have to wear him out, debilitate him, etc.  And they think that it will wear out Dem voters.

    These are not the brightest lights in the GOP firmament, not the ones who can think back even less than two decades.  The long primary season worked very well for Dems the last time that a Dem won -- when Bill Clinton didn't cinch the nomination until well into the summer.  That meant, as it does now, that the GOP pick can hardly get into the headlines.

    Parent

    You wonder why (5.00 / 2) (#11)
    by pie on Sun May 04, 2008 at 06:31:03 PM EST
    three powerful repubs are coming out for him?

    Unity, baybee.

    Haven't we had that for almost eight years?  I mean, what have the dems ever done in that time frame to seriously present themselves as an opposition party?

    What bull***t.

    Parent

    Because repubs know (none / 0) (#72)
    by Kathy on Sun May 04, 2008 at 08:35:43 PM EST
    if other repubs vote for Obama, they'll still go downticket with their trusted local repubs that they have been voting for for years.

    With Clinton...well, if she gets some repub women, even a handful, and they start looking at OTHER dem women on the ticket, and get tempted to put ticks by their names, too...game over.

    It's been proven in marketing science that the first choice you make has greater impact on the next choices you make.  One divergent choice can completely change the eventual outcome.

    Parent

    will the outnumbered (5.00 / 2) (#4)
    by isaac on Sun May 04, 2008 at 06:25:48 PM EST
    obama supporters be subject to booing, jeers, catcalls, talking during onama's speech and cheers of cliiiiiin-toooooooon?  i wonder

    Long primaries are good for the Democrats (5.00 / 3) (#7)
    by Prabhata on Sun May 04, 2008 at 06:27:26 PM EST
    Unlike prior years, the Democratic nominee will have spent enough time in Indiana for the voters to know the nominee (hopefully Clinton).  Two recent polls give Clinton a tie with McCain.

    Interesting comment posted in another (5.00 / 2) (#8)
    by oculus on Sun May 04, 2008 at 06:28:54 PM EST
    thread (sorry, I can't find it back) linking to a survey as to who doesn't have proper ID in Indiana to vote Tuesday.  People over 70 and younge people too.  

    When I was young I didn't have proper I.D. either (none / 0) (#12)
    by Militarytracy on Sun May 04, 2008 at 06:33:35 PM EST
    I was known to have a bit of improper I.D. though :)  The Mint Bar was a place for important social gatherings and I've always socially active.

    Parent
    One would think (none / 0) (#34)
    by JavaCityPal on Sun May 04, 2008 at 07:19:10 PM EST
    the proper ID would be required when they register to vote in Indiana.

    The over 70 demographic who have put away their driver's licenses, I suppose, but won't they accept an expired license for them?

    We have state ID cards for non-drivers, doesn't Indiana?  No absentee balloting for the elderly?

    Parent

    my understanding it that the id can't be expired (none / 0) (#49)
    by nycvoter on Sun May 04, 2008 at 07:58:04 PM EST
    if it's a perpetual id that's okay.  I imagine their state id might be that way or the voter id issued.

    I happened to call a poll watcher when I was making calls to Indiana this evening and asked.  I don't think Indiana has photos on some or all of their drivers licenses.

    Parent

    Michelle is on C-Span right now (5.00 / 3) (#15)
    by nycstray on Sun May 04, 2008 at 06:37:41 PM EST
    man, can she spin some tales . . .

    "he's not inexperienced, he was just working in the shadows when nobody was looking . . ."  O.M.G.

    Is That For Real? Man, obama Reminds Me (5.00 / 1) (#18)
    by PssttCmere08 on Sun May 04, 2008 at 06:40:52 PM EST
    of gwb....look over here, look over there...look at these shiny keys.  Well, obama must be soooo far back in the shadows, we haven't been able to see him.

    BTW....I REALLY like those poll numbers!

    Parent

    Yup. I tried to listen some more (none / 0) (#19)
    by nycstray on Sun May 04, 2008 at 06:42:57 PM EST
    but was getting really ticked. Wild Kingdom is much better (and a heck of a lot more REAL.)  :D

    Parent
    nyc....And Not As Scary :) (none / 0) (#60)
    by PssttCmere08 on Sun May 04, 2008 at 08:17:27 PM EST


    Parent
    GWB, remember the "dead of alive" (none / 0) (#33)
    by feet on earth on Sun May 04, 2008 at 07:16:50 PM EST
    statement about Osama binLaden?

    Now, Obama talked about bombing Pakistan  to get him.

    Ummm ....  Another similarity to dislike

    Parent

    Michelle Obama is a bit scary (5.00 / 1) (#56)
    by stefystef on Sun May 04, 2008 at 08:13:30 PM EST
    Serious.  I hear some of the things that she says and I don't know how people are worried about her influence on Obama.

    Parent
    Michelle Obama (5.00 / 4) (#67)
    by Kathy on Sun May 04, 2008 at 08:27:34 PM EST
    will be pilloried on the outside chance that Obama gets the nom.  She'll find out first-hand what republicans do to strong-minded, well-educated women.

    It's called karma.  

    Parent

    Yeah (none / 0) (#99)
    by Emma on Sun May 04, 2008 at 11:35:37 PM EST
    No sh*.  And I'll call it payback for that bullsh* "if you can't run your own house, you can't run the white house" cr**.  And she can reap what she's sown, IMO.

    Parent
    Huh (none / 0) (#100)
    by Emma on Sun May 04, 2008 at 11:36:18 PM EST
    That was a weird bold.  Not at all what I intended.

    Parent
    Putting an asterisk before a line of post (none / 0) (#105)
    by tree on Mon May 05, 2008 at 12:43:09 AM EST
    will highlight the line, and another asterisk after it will end the bold. Try using other characters besides the asterisk if you want to use an expletive. On the other hand, the asterisk is a quick and easy way to bold.

    Parent
    Why is it okay to slam (5.00 / 1) (#98)
    by kateNC on Sun May 04, 2008 at 10:51:16 PM EST
    Michelle Obama's influence on her husband? This sounds somewhat sexist to me. She's not scary.

    I'm for Hillary 100% but slamming women is slamming women no matter who they are, well, except for Ann Coulter.

    Parent

    I like Michelle (none / 0) (#102)
    by wasabi on Mon May 05, 2008 at 12:01:34 AM EST
    I don't like what she has said about Hillary or the campaign, but she is very intelligent and a great speaker in front of small groups.

    She's a strong woman, but I'm ok with that.

    Parent

    No tea parties for him, eh? (none / 0) (#35)
    by JavaCityPal on Sun May 04, 2008 at 07:21:44 PM EST
    seems he sunk that ship on his opponent...he and his are simply amazing.

    Parent
    From the link: (5.00 / 2) (#16)
    by pie on Sun May 04, 2008 at 06:38:32 PM EST
    The Jefferson Jackson Day dinner is always a major fundraiser for the state party, although in years past it has not generated nearly as much excitement as Sunday's function. The last presidential candidate to attend was Jesse Jackson, Parker said.

    Sat what you want.  This election has generated some excitement.

    Say. Grrrrr. (none / 0) (#24)
    by pie on Sun May 04, 2008 at 06:50:16 PM EST
    And not only excitement and attention but earned income.  :)

    Parent
    Hillary's speech (5.00 / 5) (#48)
    by Jeralyn on Sun May 04, 2008 at 07:57:05 PM EST
    is good and well received. It's practical and down to earth. Filled with concrete examples a voter can relate to.

    She's giving a great speech (5.00 / 2) (#59)
    by NotThatStupid on Sun May 04, 2008 at 08:17:25 PM EST
    Full of concrete answers and serious explanations of the problems we face.

    I want her in the White House because returning the U.S. to the status of a respected neighbour in the global community and restoring respect for civil and human rights in this country is going to take a long time and a lot of hard work. A lot of hard work.

    If this primary season has proven anything it's this: Senator Clinton is the only Democrat who never stops working for the things she wants to achieve. She never says "that's enough work, let's stop this and move on to something else, now." She never gets tired of the fight, or bored with the details of how to win it.

    (P.S. How come CNN only aired a few minutes of her speech, but Fox showed all of it?)

    Parent

    And she won't ever say (5.00 / 2) (#84)
    by felizarte on Sun May 04, 2008 at 09:01:07 PM EST
    "Can I just eat my waffle?"  Man or woman, she has the best qualifications for the presidency, especially in these times.

    Parent
    jeralyn (none / 0) (#52)
    by nycvoter on Sun May 04, 2008 at 08:03:26 PM EST
    am I correct about NW Indiana.  Isn't that area supposed to favor Obama, like Gary?  That would make this poll even better

    Parent
    if that poll is accurate (5.00 / 1) (#75)
    by bigbay on Sun May 04, 2008 at 08:36:57 PM EST
    Indiana will be a 15-20 point blow out.

    Parent
    Chicago media (none / 0) (#71)
    by mmc9431 on Sun May 04, 2008 at 08:33:27 PM EST
    All the TV stations in Chicago would be available to NW corridor of IN. Should help Obama. Plus that area probably has the highrst percentage of AA in IN.

    Parent
    Political analyst (5.00 / 1) (#50)
    by Arabella Trefoil on Sun May 04, 2008 at 08:02:06 PM EST
    Jeanine Pirro? Stop it, you're killing me. I hope someone will summarize her comments for us. Her qualifications for the gig are that she's a woman and she lives in Westchester, so she has a deep understanding of Hillary Clinton.

    Alan Keyes, anyone? (5.00 / 0) (#54)
    by tree on Sun May 04, 2008 at 08:11:12 PM EST
    Maybe we'll get Alan Keyes as the analyst for Obama's speech. That would be a hoot. Why do I think its unlikely, though? Couldn't be a double standard, could it?

    Parent
    Pirro Is A Piece Of Work....And Wasn't She (none / 0) (#61)
    by PssttCmere08 on Sun May 04, 2008 at 08:19:53 PM EST
    running for senator in NY, same time as Hillary?
    I think she was involved in some type of scandal, or her husband left her, or something like that.

    Parent
    Pirro (none / 0) (#68)
    by themomcat on Sun May 04, 2008 at 08:28:21 PM EST
    was the Republican District Attorney in Westchester Co. when her husband got himself in to hot water. And there was something about her hiring a private detective to spy on him because he was having an affair and wanted to get the goods on him. And she got into some trouble over the P.I. for some obscure reason. S you can tell I didn't really pay all that much attention to what was happening as I thought it was pretty trivial. In 2 years all of this will be a blur, too.

    Parent
    I wrote about all those things (none / 0) (#96)
    by Jeralyn on Sun May 04, 2008 at 10:36:18 PM EST
    when they happened. Do a search for "Pirro" in the search box on the right. The pi was Bernie Kerik. They were overheard on a wiretap. She was investigated by the feds, no charges were brought. She complained (probably for the first time ever) the investigation was politically motivated.

    Her husband was tried and convicted for tax fraud, She attended the trial every day. He went to jail and has been out a long time. I'm not sure if they are still together.

    I don't want to bash Jeanine, I just don't think she should be on a news show as an analyst given her being Hillary's opponent.

    Parent

    I'm sitting here watching Hillary... (5.00 / 2) (#57)
    by white n az on Sun May 04, 2008 at 08:15:26 PM EST
    and it's obvious that they split the room and half the room is Hillary supporters and half isn't and you can see the half that isn't a Hillary supporter sitting on their hands...

    nice way to demonstrate party unity...

    I gather that the Hillary supporters are likely to be better team players

    FOX is the only news net carrying (5.00 / 1) (#79)
    by kenosharick on Sun May 04, 2008 at 08:43:02 PM EST
    Hillary's speech live- Great speech too. Bill is making 11 campaign stops in NC Monday; they must think they can do well there. I have noticed the "experts" moving the goalposts every day. First coming close in boh states was a "victory" then Indiana was a must win,now I am hearing she "must win" NC to stay in. A Fox analyst just said it is "impossible" for her to win in NC, and she "stepped in it" over the gas tax.

    Looks like CNN is covering all of Obama's. (5.00 / 1) (#87)
    by Teresa on Sun May 04, 2008 at 09:08:09 PM EST
    They had to interrupt Hillary's so they could show Michael Moore blast her for a full hour for the second time this week.

    Parent
    Okay. (5.00 / 1) (#92)
    by pie on Sun May 04, 2008 at 09:21:32 PM EST
    I'm surprised at how flat Obama is.  Maybe it's because he's not smiling, but it sure looks like he's phoning it in in.  He also got a greareception, but it didn't energize him.

    Hmmm.

    That's (none / 0) (#93)
    by pie on Sun May 04, 2008 at 09:22:39 PM EST
    great reception.

    Parent
    its not winning Indiana that is important... (4.66 / 3) (#41)
    by p lukasiak on Sun May 04, 2008 at 07:43:05 PM EST
    its not having to write it off.

    Same goes for Texas.... it really didn't matter who won there as long as both ran credible campaigns.

    Clinton could make Indiana competitive, but I don't think Obama can make any state truly competitive at this point.  Every time an Obama supporter says "Democratic party leaders have to be concerned about black voters" a tingle goes up the leg of every Republican, because they know that there are tens of millions of non-black Clinton supporters thinking to thenselves "If Obama wins, it means that the DNC isn't concerned with MY vote"....

    Amen to that (5.00 / 0) (#43)
    by RalphB on Sun May 04, 2008 at 07:48:50 PM EST
    Amazing how us bitter Clinton supporters keep clinging to our candidate.

    Parent
    There's a reason for that. (none / 0) (#44)
    by pie on Sun May 04, 2008 at 07:50:20 PM EST
    A very good reason.

    Parent
    The very best reason (5.00 / 0) (#46)
    by RalphB on Sun May 04, 2008 at 07:52:06 PM EST
    She would be the best president and that's what this is really all about!


    Parent
    Unbelievable? (4.00 / 0) (#51)
    by Jackson Hunter on Sun May 04, 2008 at 08:02:39 PM EST
    It's unbelievable that Fox would have a biased analyst?  The hell you say, don't impugn that fine "Fair and Balanced" network, they ALWAYS have on unbiased political observers.  (This is not a shot at you Jeralyn, just some snark, because having her opponent on to analyze her is a bit much, even for that propaganda slag heap.)  But I do agree with McCaullife (sp?) that they have treated our candidates equally crappy that's for sure, which is better than what you can say for MSNBC.

    This reminds me of the whole "Elian" thing in the late 90's, on the morning of the raid Fox had on the phone an "analyst" (I think his name was Jack something, not sure) who had been Janet Reno's opponent and he spent the whole time ripping her and the Democratic Party new ones about how they were "writing off Florida for 30 years" and the like.  He might well have been right, but to have a passionate opponent on as a neutral observer is BS.  They did mention who he was, but he was the only one opining for like an hour on the subject.  What garbage that was.

    Jackson

    re FOX (5.00 / 2) (#64)
    by DFLer on Sun May 04, 2008 at 08:25:49 PM EST
    whatever...they are the only channel broadcasting the speeches....Hillary's remarks in total, without commercial interruption. Amazing! CNN had the start of Clinton, broke for a commercial, came back for a little, then went away to Larry King with Michael Moore. FOX is delaying Hannity to broadcast the speeches.

    I assume they'll do the same for Barack

    Parent

    make that (none / 0) (#106)
    by sleepingdogs on Mon May 05, 2008 at 05:57:59 AM EST
    a RERUN of Michael Moore on LKL was more important.......  That really ticked me off.  Her speech got about 10 minutes of total air time.  His received over 30.

    I also watched CNN.  Before Hillary was speaking, I swear I saw they showed Obama giving a stump speech that day and it was the exact same speech he gave at the dinner.  

    I thought Hillary's comments were more appropriate to the occasion, and Obama was just comtinuing to campaign.  I understand there's a campaign component to these speeches, but I thought that was not the primary reason.  I also got tired of Obama hollering at me, where Hillary seemed to talk more about solutions and the hopeful future of the party.  

    Parent

    Anyone know what network the JJ dinner might (none / 0) (#36)
    by JavaCityPal on Sun May 04, 2008 at 07:24:42 PM EST
    be broadcast on?  Live feed online...

    Or post a link?  I don't watch TV, everything comes through my computer cable.

    Looks like CSPAN (none / 0) (#40)
    by pie on Sun May 04, 2008 at 07:39:49 PM EST
    show it at 9:30 here (EST).

    Parent
    Precious resources? (none / 0) (#38)
    by pie on Sun May 04, 2008 at 07:35:02 PM EST
    Like everything else, what comes up must come down.  Democrats haven't won Indiana in 44 years in the GE, and campaigning and using precious resources is good for the party how???

    Yes.  That's the point, isn't it?  There hasn't been a Jefferson Jackson dinner in Indiana since Jesse Jackson ran.

    When was that?

    Pie....It was 1988 And The Race Went All The (5.00 / 3) (#65)
    by PssttCmere08 on Sun May 04, 2008 at 08:26:15 PM EST
    way to the convention even though Jackson only had 1200 delegates.  Imagine that, they didn't ask him to stop his race for the good of the party!!

    Parent
    The good of the party. (5.00 / 1) (#77)
    by pie on Sun May 04, 2008 at 08:40:56 PM EST
    Dare I hope that the voters might get to help decide what's good for the party for a change?

    Parent
    Both Hillary and Obama on Fox & Friends (none / 0) (#39)
    by lilburro on Sun May 04, 2008 at 07:38:13 PM EST
    I guess the war against Fox is lost for this round, huh?

    Does that mean Obama will have appeared on Fox more times than on Olbermann's show?

    I'm with a commenter here... (5.00 / 4) (#63)
    by lambert on Sun May 04, 2008 at 08:24:47 PM EST
    Given what MSNBC and CNN have become, we might as well not distinguish between them and FOX.

    NPR, too. I could't believe it when they ran a story on WVWV without the exculpatory evidence from McNary -- an Obama supporter and WVWV board member says nothing to the story, and no coverage. Zip. Zilch. Nada.

    Parent

    NPR story (none / 0) (#103)
    by wasabi on Mon May 05, 2008 at 12:08:02 AM EST
    I sent the author a letter and asked him why he didn't get WVWV's side of the story before publishing an inflamatory "possible suppression" story.  He siad nobody from WVWV responded to his request.  I sent a response that he had no business publishing the story w/o a response because the charge is so loaded in a Democratic primary.  The Reps don't care if they're called racist, but Dems sure do.

    NPR is not getting any more of my money and I've been supporting them for close to 30 years.

    Parent

    isn't NW Indiana where Obama is supposed (none / 0) (#47)
    by nycvoter on Sun May 04, 2008 at 07:53:36 PM EST
    to do well because they share the Chicago media market?  

    Right - (5.00 / 2) (#55)
    by sas on Sun May 04, 2008 at 08:12:28 PM EST
    supposed to be.  Now that is a turnaround.

    I think now he realizes he is the weaker candidate....that his margins in Guam, NC, and Indiana are not goin g to be what he thought....he will absolutely get plastered in W Va, and Ky....PR will go to Hillary
    He may win Oregon, SD, and Montana....

    so now he talks unity...

    too little , too late imo

    meanwhile, you have to wonder how the party could be so DUMB to nominate him...just not to offend blacks and the youth vote, but to offend everyone else, especially women  

    The posters on Republican sites I visit sometimes can't believe it.  They think Obama will be so much easier to defeat in the fall.

    Parent

    There's no fury like a woman scorned (none / 0) (#70)
    by Sunshine on Sun May 04, 2008 at 08:33:21 PM EST
    Or offended

    Parent
    Pirro? (none / 0) (#66)
    by kredwyn on Sun May 04, 2008 at 08:27:27 PM EST
    Why?

    She needed a job? (none / 0) (#69)
    by themomcat on Sun May 04, 2008 at 08:29:51 PM EST


    Parent
    Remember Pirro's speech? (none / 0) (#76)
    by Marco21 on Sun May 04, 2008 at 08:40:38 PM EST
    Her anti-Hillary rant had a missing page and Pirro was went silent for something like 30 seconds?

    Hilarious.

    Parent

    That was Hillary's fault, too (5.00 / 0) (#81)
    by themomcat on Sun May 04, 2008 at 08:47:33 PM EST


    Parent
    Oh my God (none / 0) (#82)
    by MaryGM on Sun May 04, 2008 at 08:48:10 PM EST
    I completely forgot about that.  It was featured on The Daily Show.  I gotta track that video down and re-live Ms. Pirro in all her fumbling glory.

    Parent
    I'm now watching her on CSpan. (none / 0) (#74)
    by pie on Sun May 04, 2008 at 08:36:29 PM EST
    Well-received, I'd say.  :- )

    She's very relaxed (none / 0) (#83)
    by waldenpond on Sun May 04, 2008 at 08:54:21 PM EST
    and confident.  I liked her joke about Bush seeing her plans while channel surfing.

    Parent
    Or not seeing them. (5.00 / 1) (#86)
    by pie on Sun May 04, 2008 at 09:07:51 PM EST
    Bush.  

    Worst President Ever.

    Parent

    Dubbya has been such a disaster (none / 0) (#90)
    by nellre on Sun May 04, 2008 at 09:13:20 PM EST
    Perhaps we'll see some surprises.

    Is it possible (none / 0) (#91)
    by Molly Pitcher on Sun May 04, 2008 at 09:18:14 PM EST
    the repugnants dimly realize that the shrub has been such a bust that it is likely a dem might win--and that a few of them see that one of our candidates will be better for the country?  Some of us have been intimating that Obama would be an American disaster.  Maybe a few of our opponents also would prefer what is best for the country, assuming the shrub pulls down their entire party.

    Pander Link Mydd please (none / 0) (#97)
    by delacarpa on Sun May 04, 2008 at 10:40:47 PM EST
    Went to Mydd and didn't see the pandering link of Obama. Someone have that link.

    Obama didn't pander, before he did :-) (none / 0) (#101)
    by RalphB on Sun May 04, 2008 at 11:37:44 PM EST
    Try this one.

    link

    Parent

    Something rotten Indiana (none / 0) (#104)
    by Dadler on Mon May 05, 2008 at 12:39:56 AM EST
    The incredible shrinking Indiana voter rolls.

    Hmm.......

    Tonight's Jefferson-Jackson Dinner in Indiana | 103 comments (103 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment