Note: I’m STILL skeptical of a loss for her in Indiana.

Talking Points Memo says that Clinton has canceled all her public appearances tomorrow.  Now, I’m not one for conspiracy theories, but the last time a big name canceled all public appearances in an attempt to sway people to their side, HD-DVD went under a couple weeks later.

I’m not saying she’s going to drop, but she didn’t look sick at her speech tonight, so I don’t what’s up.

Last time I posted, they were split by 4.  Now, part of Gary, Indiana has come in, and Obama’s now down by only 2.

The commentators keep speaking about a possible turnover, if Obama gets Lake County big time, but I’m going to think more realistically.  Look, in real votes, Obama has been skirting the 20,000 vote mark ever since Lake start coming in, but lets consider some thing.  He’ll probably get Gary, and maybe a few other places.  But, if what the mayor of Hammond, Indiana says is true, he’s lost the other big city in Lake County.

I think Obama is going to potentially close in on the 10,000 mark, but he’s probably not going to break that.  I still think Clinton is going to get Indiana, but it won’t be the win she was looking for, despite any help she may have gotten from the Limbaughites.

Sorry Obama supporters.  You can hope, but I don’t think it’s happening.

Hillary Clinton can’t be feeling very good right now.  I intended to start this entry two minutes ago, but then decided to make dinner first real quick.  Two minutes ago, she was up six in Indiana.  I come back, and she’s only up four now!

This is absolutely amazing.  After all the vicious Jeremiah Wright scandal coverage, the flimsy connection to former terrorist and anti-American Bill Ayers, the self-return of Reverend Wright and his throwing of Obama under the bus, the loss in Pennsylvania, and the very vicious campaign that Clinton is putting against Obama, the returns we’re seeing tonight are absolutely amazing.

Like some other states, Obama was widely believed to lose Indiana by a large amount several weeks before hand.  Then, in the day or two leading up to the election, the polls were all over the place.  Some had him losing by a lot, and others statistically tied.

Yet, in all the results I’ve seen tonight, Clinton’s gone from winning by double digits, to six, and now she’s up by only four.  She’s not gone up very much all night.  I really don’t understand it, at least, by following all the news over the past few days.  All the demographics seemed to indicate a huge Clinton win.  The likes of Rush Limbaugh were said to be sending out the Republican troops to switch sides and vote for Clinton in an open primary.

Yet, here we are, at 20 to 10pm EDT, and he keeps moving up in the percentage.  I’m sorry Hillary, you just didn’t do so well tonight.  You lost North Carolina, probably by 20% or so, and may win Indiana, but certainly not by much.

I’d be very interested in seeing the exit polls from Indiana, which CNN or anyone else doesn’t seem to be talking about.  I want some demographics for Indiana, because I can understand North Carolina, but Obama has to have had some widespread support in Indiana for any of this to make sense.

I look forward to watching the coverage tonight, but I must say one thing…this morning I asked for some direction from the voters today.  For them to give us something that will determine the general direction of the nomination.  Well, it’s certainly not anything clear, but I must say, it’s close enough.

On the eve of Indiana and North Carolina, Clinton goes negative on Obama:

[ed note: old video is now private]

Obama responds:

[ed note: old video has been removed on YouTube]

Personally, I think both ads are really equally negative (and Obama needs to be seen as being able to fight back), but I’m more interested in who’s right.

As I said a couple weeks ago, I think Clinton is wrong on the gas tax.  So, I think her ad is a waste of time and money.  I’ve already said that the people will be able to see through her and McCain’s rhetoric on the “holiday.”  So, I don’t know why she even tried to attack him on this issue.  I mean, come on, it would have been just as stupid, but I think attacking him on Bill Ayers would have been more relevant.

I don’t know what she’s thinking.  Come on, Hillary!  I defended you the other day!  Don’t make me regret it.

What can I say that nobody else has? I’ll do a round-up of analysis on the widely ranging polls out there.

The Moderate Voice is finding a range of polls…everything from Obama is going to do badly, to he’s going to do pretty nicely. Here’s some posts:

He’s Rebounding

He’s Hurt Among Independents and Dems

He’ll Get North Carolina and She’ll Get Indiana

He Leads by 10 in North Carolina

and for some light reading, check out the demographics of voters in North Carolina.

Meanwhile, talk of an Obama/Clinton ticket has come up again.  The tone seems to be different this time, though. Last time, commentators were either talking Obama/Clinton, Clinton/Obama, or like me, analyzing the idea no matter which way it would go down. This time, however, nobody seems to be pretending that it’d go Clinton/Obama, and instead suggest an Obama/Clinton ticket.

Leading the charge is Andrew Sullivan, with a London Times article touting the idea. But not everyone is in favor of it. He’s getting many dissents from readers, but also some support.

Count me among those who support him. I still stand by what I said almost two months ago. There’s definitely disadvantages to such a ticket, but I think the advantages in the kind of support and demographics she could bring to the general election outweighs any negative elements.

There is the Bill Clinton factor that would need to be worked out, but maybe Obama can have him do something to get him out of the way, haha.

Bring it on, Indiana and North Carolina.

The LA Times has reported that actress and former anti-Vietnam war activist Jane Fonda has endorsed Barack Obama.

This endorsement is not surprising in itself, nor is it the first time a liberal like Fonda has given their nod to Obama.  However, some people, such as Michael van der Galien over at Poligazette, have a warning for Obama:

My advise for Obama, then: don’t appear publicly with Fonda. It can only hurt you; you’ve already got the support of the far-left of the Democratic Party, you don’t need her to in order to get the radicals to support you.

Though I don’t think that Fonda can really harm Obama that much (he weathered the Wright affair), I am inclined to agree with this statement.  We’re on the final leg of the primaries, and while Obama still needs all the liberals he can get to the win the nomination, that will soon change.

Assuming he becomes the nominee, appearing with Fonda may become a bad idea.  This is because he’ll need to start reaching out to moderates and conservatives if he wishes to become President.  Now, I can’t speak for everybody, but I’m willing to bet the old stigma Fonda has for appearing in those photos with the Vietcong still exists for perhaps all but the most liberal of people in this country.  That’s an association Obama really doesn’t need, given his already vocal denunciation of the Iraq war.

Lets face the facts.  The conservatives will start sending out their troops again if Obama does appear with Fonda, just as the liberals did with John McCain and John Hagee.  I don’t agree with the tactics employed by either side, but it is what happens.

Obama came through Wrightgate with some scratches, but also with some newfound respect by supporters and opponents alike.  Could he survive yet another pounding by the media and blogosphere?  Probably.  But why incur such wrath if you don’t need to?

My advice therefore remains largely the same.  Quietly accept the endorsement,  but stay away from Jane Fonda.

Just when I thought I was getting sick of writing about the events of the primary season, a class assignment recharges my enthusiasm. So, for the first time, cross-posted from class.

Over at Firedoglake, Jane Hamsher says that Senator Joe Lieberman has stabbed Barack Obama in the back. Lieberman recently appeared on Fox News and discussed those two words that have come back to haunt John McCain, “100 years.” Says Lieberman:

If we did what Sen. Obama wanted us to do last year, Al-Qaeda in Iran would be in control of Iraq today. The whole Middle East would be in turmoil and American security and credibility would be jeopardized.

On the specific question of the 100 years, I think that’s an unfortunate example of the way Sen. Obama has used it, of playing political gotcha with a national security question.

Hamsher does not much appreciate Lieberman speaking out against a fellow Democrat, and makes it pretty clear:

This is gold for McCain, having “liberal, bipartisan Democrat Joe Lieberman” standing by his side, trashing Obama on experience and national security credentials.”

For the longest of time, I have considered McCain’s “100 years” statement to be taken out of context. So does McCain, because he’s gone back to clarify the comments. He has explained that he sees a presence in Iraq lasting long after the majority of operations have ended there.

A presence.

Like the one we have in Germany, or in Japan, or in South Korea. You know, in all those places that we have gone to fought over the last 100 years. I know the reason why we have maintained a presence there: stability. Who wouldn’t want to make sure Germany didn’t return to Nazi control after 1945, or make sure Japan didn’t continue fighting after their surrender?

Now, I would argue that a place like Germany or Japan no longer needs our presence. On one hand, I know in the case of Japan, their constitution bars the formation of a military. Yet, I think the time has been long past where these countries are a threat to the U.S.

Likewise, Iraq will need a presence after major military operations are over, if that’s ever the case. Assuming the extremists can be weeded out, and assuming the government of Iraq gets off their kiesters and starts taking control of their country (both huge assumptions), most of our people can be taken out. However, to ensure that someone like Iran is not going to immediately invade, we’ll need some kind of presence there. Whether we’ll actually need 100 years or not is the question that must be asked, but it isn’t one that can be academically debated, I think. However, once the U.S. government sees that things will remain relatively stable, then I think it will be time to fully remove our forces from the country.

So, McCain is not referring to 100 years of the continued military presence and operation we’ve been seeing for the past five years. He refers to ensuring stability, and I think it will be needed. Perhaps it will not take 100 years, but I think it will take several years.

That Obama keeps playing on the “100 years” statement is smart in some ways, and annoying in others. It’s a good way to pull in those who are sick of the war. On the other hand, it smells of the old and dirty politics that everybody hates in this election cycle. The kind of tactics the mainstream media keeps linking with the likes of Hillary Clinton or Karl Rove. Yet, because it’s Obama, he seems to get a pass on it.

Obama has shown he is better than that. It’s all right to question your opponent on something they have said, but to keep bringing it up is annoying to me.