So Barack Obama is back. The results on Tuesday did not provide the "game changer" Hillary Clinton so desperately needed. Instead, Obama built on his leads in delegates and the popular vote. His aides pointed to May 20 as the day when he will clinch a majority of elected delegates, essentially becoming the party's presumptive nominee. And that's not all.

In Indiana, Obama improved his support across several key demographics, despite a bruising month of attacks on his pastor, patriotism and populism. Compared to Ohio and Pennsylvania, he generally drew more votes from white women, Catholics, gun owners, households earning under $50,000 annually, voters prioritizing the economy, and voters without a college degree. A Democratic field operative sent in this graph of Obama's performance in the three states:

Obama's remarks in North Carolina emphasized his intention to vanquish attack politics:

Yes, we know what's coming. We've seen it already. The same names and labels they always pin on everyone who doesn't agree with all their ideas. The same efforts to distract us from the issues that affect our lives by pouncing on every gaffe and association and fake controversy in the hope that the media will play along... This is what they will do – no matter which one of us is the nominee. The question, then, is not what kind of campaign they'll run, it's what kind of campaign we will run. It's what we will do to make this year different. I didn't get into race thinking that I could avoid this kind of politics, but I am running for President because this is the time to end it.

Comments (22)

1. It's refreshing to find truly unbiased analysis. I watched Lehrer tonight (one of my nightly rituals) and one of their pollsters said that Rev. Wright is going to be bad for Hillary Clinton. After all that mess and she still couldn't sell herself convincingly in a plum state for her like Indiana? Astounding.

   This of course means that we're going until June folks. The ride ain't over yet!

   Posted by yutsano at 05/06/2008 @ 9:23pm

2. well, she's not melting yet.

   but at least her flying monkeys seem to be crashing down....

   Tuesday, May 6, 2008 9:31:25 PM

   Posted by frosty zoom at 05/06/2008 @ 9:26pm

3. *52/48 with obama strong areas yet to report...*

   Missouri redux? I won't be so optimistic.

   Posted by yutsano at 05/06/2008 @ 9:29pm

4. meanwhile, back on neptune:

   <i>U.S. panel authorizes subpoena of Cheney aide Tue May 6, 2008 4:16pm EDT Email | Print | Share | Reprints | Single Page (Updates with comments by Conyers, paragraphs 5-6)

   By Thomas Ferraro

   WASHINGTON, May 6 (Reuters) - A Democratic-led U.S. congressional panel on Tuesday authorized a subpoena of Vice President Dick Cheney's chief of staff in its probe of possible U.S. torture of suspected terrorists.

   House of Representatives Judiciary Committee Chairman John Conyers of Michigan was expected to move within days to subpoena DAVID ADDINGTON, WHO THE ADMINISTRATION MAINTAINS IS IMMUNE FROM BEING REQUIRED TO TESTIFY TO CONGRESS..........

   Tuesday, May 6, 2008 9:36:09 PM

   Posted by frosty zoom at 05/06/2008 @ 9:31pm

5. hey, in NC you can choose "no preference".

   cool.

   cast your vote for nobody.......

   Posted by frosty zoom at 05/06/2008 @ 9:34pm

6. Indiana will be a squeaker, which has to be humiliating for her considering his absolute rout in NC. But she won't drop, not by a long shot.

   Posted by yutsano at 05/06/2008 @ 9:44pm

7. barack's mamma said to barack, "this isn't kansas anymore".

   i don't think we should call him "the brown tornado", though.

   Tuesday, May 6, 2008 9:56:31 PM

   Posted by frosty zoom at 05/06/2008 @ 9:52pm

8. Let the bribes & bullying increase ... Billary, AIPAC & Co. will thrash viciously from now to the convention, if more SuperDs don't step up & put a stop to the party's self-immolation. Edwards is playing an all too selfish game at this point, ditto Gore, and Carter is being rather less than Solomonic.

   Posted by sloper at 05/06/2008 @ 9:59pm

9. Well, it looks like Obama will squeak through to the nomination. Clinton has made no substantial delegate or popular vote gains on him, and I believe the race-baiting, prowar, macho-sexist, and implicitly pro-McCain character of her campaign has made her poison to most of the remaining superdelegates.

   I have a suggestion about possible Vice-Presidential candidates. For one thing, I think Clinton should be out. For one thing, if she is the candidate or not, there is no effort that she and the ex-President will continue their drive to make it impossible for him to be elected in various, perhaps subtle way. And if elected, he will have to expect her to do what she can to make him a one-term candidate and get the 2012 campaign for herself.

   2012 is the name of the game now, and a defeat for the Democrats would be the best thing for her politics, which have for sixteen years consisted of triangulating away from the Democratic base toward the social and political sectors who are most deeply hostile toward the Democratic base, including the remaining union members.

   She would be more appropriate as a vice presidential candidate for a reaching-out McCain than for Obama, and I don't rule that out. (Be's an old man in possibly bad health.)

   I think Obama should nominate John Edwards, who is definitely not a race-baiter but in many ways directed his labor-oriented campaign towards the white sectors of the working class whom Clinton has been seeking to inflame against Obama on essentially racial grounds.

   We should keep in mind that she has deepened divisions over race in the white sector of the working class, not united them against Obama. Many are still moved by the call for change, and for deeper change than a return to the Clinton style could achieve or seek.

   My plan is to vote for Cynthia McKinney on the Green ticket, but I think my advice nonetheless bears some consideration.

   Posted by ffeldman at 05/06/2008 @ 10:01pm

10. Well, it looks like Obama will squeak through to the nomination. Clinton has made no substantial delegate or popular vote gains on him, and I believe the race-baiting, prowar, macho-sexist, and implicitly pro-McCain character of her campaign has made her poison to most of the remaining superdelegates.

    I have a suggestion about possible Vice-Presidential candidates. For one thing, I think Clinton should be out. For one thing, if she is the candidate or not, there is no effort that she and the ex-President will continue their drive to make it impossible for him to be elected in various, perhaps subtle way. And if elected, he will have to expect her to do what she can to make him a one-term candidate and get the 2012 campaign for herself.

    2012 is the name of the game now, and a defeat for the Democrats would be the best thing for her politics, which have for sixteen years consisted of triangulating away from the Democratic base toward the social and political sectors who are most deeply hostile toward the Democratic base, including the remaining union members.

    She would be more appropriate as a vice presidential candidate for a reaching-out McCain than for Obama, and I don't rule that out. (Be's an old man in possibly bad health.)

    I think Obama should nominate John Edwards, who is definitely not a race-baiter but in many ways directed his labor-oriented campaign towards the white sectors of the working class whom Clinton has been seeking to inflame against Obama on essentially racial grounds.

    We should keep in mind that she has deepened divisions over race in the white sector of the working class, not united them against Obama. Many are still moved by the call for change, and for deeper change than a return to the Clinton style could achieve or seek.

    My plan is to vote for Cynthia McKinney on the Green ticket, but I think my advice nonetheless bears some consideration.

    Posted by ffeldman at 05/06/2008 @ 10:01pm

11. Well, it looks like Obama will squeak through to the nomination. Clinton has made no substantial delegate or popular vote gains on him, and I believe the race-baiting, prowar, macho-sexist, and implicitly pro-McCain character of her campaign has made her poison to most of the remaining superdelegates.

    I have a suggestion about possible Vice-Presidential candidates. For one thing, I think Clinton should be out. For one thing, if she is the candidate or not, there is no effort that she and the ex-President will continue their drive to make it impossible for him to be elected in various, perhaps subtle way. And if elected, he will have to expect her to do what she can to make him a one-term candidate and get the 2012 campaign for herself.

    2012 is the name of the game now, and a defeat for the Democrats would be the best thing for her politics, which have for sixteen years consisted of triangulating away from the Democratic base toward the social and political sectors who are most deeply hostile toward the Democratic base, including the remaining union members.

    She would be more appropriate as a vice presidential candidate for a reaching-out McCain than for Obama, and I don't rule that out. (Be's an old man in possibly bad health.)

    I think Obama should nominate John Edwards, who is definitely not a race-baiter but in many ways directed his labor-oriented campaign towards the white sectors of the working class whom Clinton has been seeking to inflame against Obama on essentially racial grounds.

    We should keep in mind that she has deepened divisions over race in the white sector of the working class, not united them against Obama. Many are still moved by the call for change, and for deeper change than a return to the Clinton style could achieve or seek.

    My plan is to vote for Cynthia McKinney on the Green ticket, but I think my advice nonetheless bears some consideration.

    Posted by ffeldman at 05/06/2008 @ 10:01pm

12. Well, it looks like Obama will squeak through to the nomination. Clinton has made no substantial delegate or popular vote gains on him, and I believe the race-baiting, prowar, macho-sexist, and implicitly pro-McCain character of her campaign has made her poison to most of the remaining superdelegates.

    I have a suggestion about possible Vice-Presidential candidates. For one thing, I think Clinton should be out. For one thing, if she is the candidate or not, there is no effort that she and the ex-President will continue their drive to make it impossible for him to be elected in various, perhaps subtle way. And if elected, he will have to expect her to do what she can to make him a one-term candidate and get the 2012 campaign for herself.

    2012 is the name of the game now, and a defeat for the Democrats would be the best thing for her politics, which have for sixteen years consisted of triangulating away from the Democratic base toward the social and political sectors who are most deeply hostile toward the Democratic base, including the remaining union members.

    She would be more appropriate as a vice presidential candidate for a reaching-out McCain than for Obama, and I don't rule that out. (Be's an old man in possibly bad health.)

    I think Obama should nominate John Edwards, who is definitely not a race-baiter but in many ways directed his labor-oriented campaign towards the white sectors of the working class whom Clinton has been seeking to inflame against Obama on essentially racial grounds.

    We should keep in mind that she has deepened divisions over race in the white sector of the working class, not united them against Obama. Many are still moved by the call for change, and for deeper change than a return to the Clinton style could achieve or seek.

    My plan is to vote for Cynthia McKinney on the Green ticket, but I think my advice nonetheless bears some consideration.

    Posted by ffeldman at 05/06/2008 @ 10:01pm

13. Well, it looks like Obama will squeak through to the nomination. Clinton has made no substantial delegate or popular vote gains on him, and I believe the race-baiting, prowar, macho-sexist, and implicitly pro-McCain character of her campaign has made her poison to most of the remaining superdelegates.

    I have a suggestion about possible Vice-Presidential candidates. For one thing, I think Clinton should be out. For one thing, if she is the candidate or not, there is no effort that she and the ex-President will continue their drive to make it impossible for him to be elected in various, perhaps subtle way. And if elected, he will have to expect her to do what she can to make him a one-term candidate and get the 2012 campaign for herself.

    2012 is the name of the game now, and a defeat for the Democrats would be the best thing for her politics, which have for sixteen years consisted of triangulating away from the Democratic base toward the social and political sectors who are most deeply hostile toward the Democratic base, including the remaining union members.

    She would be more appropriate as a vice presidential candidate for a reaching-out McCain than for Obama, and I don't rule that out. (Be's an old man in possibly bad health.)

    I think Obama should nominate John Edwards, who is definitely not a race-baiter but in many ways directed his labor-oriented campaign towards the white sectors of the working class whom Clinton has been seeking to inflame against Obama on essentially racial grounds.

    We should keep in mind that she has deepened divisions over race in the white sector of the working class, not united them against Obama. Many are still moved by the call for change, and for deeper change than a return to the Clinton style could achieve or seek.

    My plan is to vote for Cynthia McKinney on the Green ticket, but I think my advice nonetheless bears some consideration.

    Posted by ffeldman at 05/06/2008 @ 10:01pm

14. Painfully, painfully sorry about the hand tremor that oversent my mailing. I hope well-earned embarrassment will be my only punishment.

    Posted by ffeldman at 05/06/2008 @ 10:04pm

15. You're pardoned. But it's highly unlikely that Edwards will run again as veep. Look for Richardson, who would bring great talents, experience & fairness up to the plate. Might help Obama & him, if Obama were to break with convention & intro change by proposing Richardson soon, letting Richardson have a strong active role, the pair behaving as the de facto nominees.

    Posted by sloper at 05/06/2008 @ 10:12pm

16. this is definitely worth checking out http://obamaplanet.com/obamaplanet/forum/yaf_postst5_Funny-Video-The-Emp ire-Strikes-Barack.aspx

    Posted by tdkosz at 05/06/2008 @ 10:13pm

17. I found this on youtube. its very entertaining http://tinyurl.com/63msh4

    Posted by tdkosz at 05/06/2008 @ 10:14pm

18. I hope well-earned embarrassment will be my only punishment.

    Posted by ffeldman

    ain't yo' fault.

    Posted by frosty zoom at 05/06/2008 @ 10:14pm

19. Edwards is playing an all too selfish game at this point, ditto Gore, and Carter is being rather less than Solomonic.----Posted by sloper at 05/6/2008 |

    Uh-oh, B_KOOL and HSUBFOOLS will smack you for that!

    heheh

    Posted by Mask at 05/06/2008 @ 10:31pm

20. Actually, Maskot, no I won't "smack" sloper for that.

    Edwards has been rather inexplicably MIA for quite some time, and he just missed an excellent opportunity to speak up for Obama right before a healthy spanking of Hillary in North Carolina --for which Edwards could have plausibly claimed some credit had he endorsed Obama beforehand.

    I liked Edwards for speaking with force on the basic issue of taking back power from the corporate suits who currently have a stranglehold on our national government --and I loved his quote, "The corporations will give up their power when we take it away from them".

    Time will tell if he dedicates himself to that cause for the long haul........or, perhaps, sells out.

    Posted by b_kool_66 at 05/07/2008 @ 01:59am

21. you mean "cashes in".

    Posted by frosty zoom at 05/07/2008 @ 02:18am

22. "'Senator Clinton did not get out of the night what she needed,' said North Carolina Rep. Brad Miller, an undecided superdelegate."

    Posted by frosty zoom at 05/07/2008 @ 02:21am