Indiana too!!!

If you are in Indiana, Michigan, Illinois...and think that you can spend a day to help, please contact your local Obama campaign headquarters. There is an active push to bring people from "safe" states to help pull off what would have seemed to be the impossible just 6 months ago!

Here in Indiana, voters last went for the Democrat in 1964.

What we got was Lyndon Johnson & Vietnam.

I'm campaigning for third party votes, because they represent the only 'Change' that's more than a campaign slogan.

Wow GVC, I thought the Ayers connection was bad. Now you want to hang Johnson and Vietnam on Obama. Well, Obama did find a way to get out of serving in Vietnam. Shame on him.

Seriously, if you're going to bring up Johnson, then you need to mention the Voting Rights Act too. That's really how conservative states like Indiana got lost, and it's how Obama can run. When I was born, Obama would have risked his safety just trying to vote, forget being a candidate. That's how much has changed in one middle-aged lifetime, yet some of us on the left still grumble that he's not perfect. I suppose if your team wins the World Series, you'll skip the celebration to grumble that they need six games instead of five.

Stretching a bit, aren't we Eric?

Where, exactly, did I try to hang Vietnam on Obama? I think I pretty clearly pinned that one on Johnson, but I guess that's too hard for you to argue against, so you made something up I didn't even imply to refute instead (that's called a "strawman" fallacy, btw).
And who in this conversation, besides you, said anything about Ayers.

Seriously, if you want to bring up the 1965 Voting Rights Act, you ought to go on to talk about how that was built upon the foundation of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, and how neither one would have been possible without the tireless efforts of Republican Senator Everett Dirksen, to overcome Democratic filibusters in order to pass.
We'd like to forget the fact, but most of the opposition faced by both the 1964 Civil Rights Act and the '65 Voting Rights Act WAS from southern Democrats. Percentages of Republican support were actually considerably higher.

"Not Perfect"?
He's not even the best candidate in the race, and he's not going to be my choice on Nov. 4th.

As far as I know, the Triple-A Indianapolis Indians have never made the World Series, so I think you're just completely out in left field with that nonsense.

A long-term pacifist on the French side of the Atlantic has gotten her eyes glazed over by the Obama Glitzkrieg. It's comforting to know that some voters can see through the Glitz. How many hundred thousands does each polling point cost Obama?

There's also a forgotten piece of history preceeding the 1964 and 1965 bills, and that's the legislation that was produced by the Eisenhower administration 10 years earlier.

His 1957 Civil Rights Act along with Brown vs. Board of Education were the opening battles in the legislative front of the civil rights battles.

The Brown vs B.O.E. decision was written by Eisenhower appointee, Chief Justice Earl Warren, former Republican Gov. of California.

Eisenhower's 1957 C.R. Act was actually watered down in the Senate by majority leader... Lyndon Baines Johnson!
As Wikipedia states: Lyndon Baines Johnson, realized that the bill and its journey through Congress could tear apart his party made up of anti-civil rights and pro-civil rights members. Johnson sent the bill to the judiciary committee led by Senator James Eastland (D-Mississippi) an anti-civil rights senator. Eastland changed and altered the bill almost beyond recognition after the very public outburst by Senator Richard Russell (D-Georgia) who claimed that it was an example of the Federal government wanting to impose its laws on states. Johnson sought recognition from the civil rights advocates for passing the bill while also receiving recognition from the mostly southern anti-civil rights Democrats for "killing the bill."

In 1960, in response to bombings of black churches and schools throughout the south, Eisenhower introduced the 1960 Civil Rights Act, which introduced penalties to be levied against anybody who obstructed someone’s attempt to register to vote or someone’s attempt to actually vote.

Once again, 18 Senate Democrats teamed up to produce the longest filibuster on record, trying to kill the bill.

I don't know why today's Americans want to credit the Democrats for passing all the civil rights legislation, when most of the opposition to the now-celebrated bills actually came from Dems, and had Repub support not been so strong, the anti-civil rights Dems would have shot it dead.

Credit Where Due,
There, there. All have won so all shall have prizes.

A significant number of those conservative Democrats bolted the party after the Civil Rights Act, Strom Thurmond chief among them. In my teens, my then Democrat turned GOP congressman cried that "the party had left him."

Prior to 1965, civil rights was not a partisan issue. Plenty of liberal Republicans, mostly in the Northeast, were very comfortable with what was essentially a long Progressive run that stretched from FDR thru the early part of the Nixon Administration. But make no mistake: the GOP today is clearly a party that is opposed to the expansion of any rights other than those of property owners.

Maybe I'm completely out in left field, but haven't the parties changed just a little bit in the last 50 years? I think comparing the political parties of the 1950's/60's to their current selves is a waste of time.

Yes, Jennapoofers, understanding history is a waste of time.