John Mellencamp's situational singing
So much for the supposition that singer John Mellencamp -- a proud Hoosier -- is a Barack Obama man.
When Obama's campaign announced that Mellencamp would be performing at the candidate's rally tonight in Evansville, Ind., jump-starting the state's May 6 presidential primary, it was widely seen as a tacit endorsement of the Illinois senator.
Shortly after the Obama announcement, his rival for the Democratic presidential nomination, Hillary Clinton, entered an event in Pennsylvania with the sound of Mellencamp's "Small Town" playing. Her campaign also has Mellencamp's "Our Country" on its artists list. But by performing at an Obama event, questions swirled about how soon the songs would be removed from her playlist.
The answer, apparently, is that Mellencamp tunes will continue to be played at Clinton campaign events. Indeed, her campaign just announced that Mellencamp will perform on Saturday at a rally for the New York senator in Indianapolis.
Mellencamp had previously endorsed John Edwards for the Democratic nomination. And, like his former favorite, the singer apparently is remaining coy as the race slogs on.
-- Rick Pearson
Rick Pearson writes for The Swamp of the Chicago Tribune's Washington bureau.
Photo credit: Getty Images
lol, who cares? So this guy plays at both camp's rallies. I guess singing and entertaining is his job?
Posted by: Sally | April 22, 2008 at 12:20 PM
Mr Mellencamp....if you really care about the voter's and working class families in Indiana like I know you do, then you will support Hillary Clinton. In fact, I hope Hillary and John Edwards run together in November against McCain. They would be a great tandem to win back the Whitehouse for the Democrats. I like Obama, but his lack of experience and his campaign staff's tactics of trying to buy this election by outspending Sen Clinton is not by my measure the best road to the Presidency. I'd rather vote for the candidate with experience and substance rather than allow big money to seduce my vote. Thanks again John for all your great music and work you've done for the working men/women and families in Indiana.
Posted by: awlswll | April 22, 2008 at 12:23 PM
How is losing by 10% in one state (where you previously were behind by 20%) a "crushing defeat" that shows he can't be elected?
Yes Obama spent more money than Hillary but she spent much more. She lost her integrity by trying to be a blue-collar joe that loves guns & is "deeply offended" by Obama's statements despite habitual, and much more cold-hearted comments herself. (See: "Screw' em, Bill. We don't need them" and the comments she made in multiple White House policy meetings with Theda Skocpol).
Additionally she spoke out against the Democratic "base" & "activist Democrats." She herself has said she doesn't agree with them on policy, and her record proves it.
The only ones that have come to support her (since she lost the front runner position) are far-right Republicans that want to run against her, or at least for her to bloody up Barack some more. She has since praised Fox News as she now says it is truly fair and balanced, because it repeats her Republican talking points for her...
Give it up Hillary - you lost. Have some respect for yourself...
Posted by: nick | April 23, 2008 at 08:12 PM
Sally:
"I'd rather vote for the candidate with experience and substance rather than allow big money to seduce my vote."
How did he get that money? Not from oil execs, but from nearly 1.5 million contributers giving him small amounts because they like Obama's policies & his message.
Experience is not an end but a means to the end of hopefully better decisions..Cheney & Rumsfeld are two of the most experienced people around, yet they've made many of the horrible decisions that have led us to the mess we now face.
All Hillary's experience (if being First Lady counts as experience) led her to the exact WRONG decision on the Iraq war. Even worse in my eyes is her 2007 vote to give Bush MORE POWER for ANOTHER WAR on Iran. That she didn't know better by then is a testament to how little her experience means.
Even setting aside the 4K+ Americans dead for the wrong reasons, don't you think the $3 TRILLION wasted in Iraq could've done more good stimulating the economy, creating jobs and educating (or reeducating) Americans?
Posted by: HoosierMommy | April 23, 2008 at 08:33 PM
Ahem... I am pretty tired of the double standards and outright lies Obama's camp and supporters throw out there.
"How did he get that money? Not from oil execs"
NOT SO... If the link shows - see Boston Globe 4/21/08
http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2007/08/09/pacs_and_lobbyists_aided_obamas_rise/
"All Hillary's experience (if being First Lady counts as experience) led her to the exact WRONG decision on the Iraq war."
ONCE AND FOR ALL, SHE VOTED ON A RESOLUTION TO GIVE THE PRES THE AUTH TO GO TO WAR BUT IT WAS EXPLAINED TO ALL THAT THE INSPECTORS WOULD BE ALLOWED TO FINISH THEIR INSPECTIONS. SHE GAVE A SPEECH ADDRESSED TO PRES BUSH AS A CLEAR WARNING OF DOING ANYTHING THAT TOOK US TO WAR WITHOUT EXHAUSTING ALL OTHER AVENUES.
SEE THE YOUTUBE VIDEO OF HER FULL (NOT PARTIAL) FLOOR SPEECH.
youtube.com/watch?v=4wyCBF5CsCA&feature=related
"Even worse in my eyes is her 2007 vote to give Bush MORE POWER for ANOTHER WAR on Iran."
AS FOR THE 2007 VOTE: THIS WAS A VOTE TO DECLARE THE IRANIAN GUARD A TERRORIST ORG. IT WAS NOT A VOTE TO ALLOW PRES BUSH TO GO TO WAR. IT ABSOLUTELY GAVE BUSH NO-NADA-NOTHING IN THE WAY OF AUTH TO DO SO.
As for all of the $ wasted in the Iraq war, Obama has duplicated all of Hillary's votes since he has been in the senate so blame him too, for that, if you blame anyone.
HRC is much more capable of dealing with the election and the office of the presidency. Obama needs more testing and, truth be told, vetting before he will be qualified to sit in the Oval Office.
Hillary is the best choice, by far. THE TIDE IS TURNING!
Posted by: B Hudson | April 29, 2008 at 02:19 PM