Townhall.com The Blogspot for Political, Conservative and Republican Blogs and Bloggers

Preliminary exit poll results indicate that just under 50% of Democratic primary voters in Indiana and North Carolina say the Rev. Jeremiah Wright controversy was an important factor in their voting, per ABC News' Polling Unit.

More than 60 percent of respondents in both Indiana and North Carolina cited the economy as their top concern.

Over a third (37%) were white women, 30% were over age 60 and more than a third were college graduates. Only 7% were first-time voters. So far this season we've seen that Hillary Clinton has held an advantage among those voting early, but Barack Obama has made a major effort to get his supporters to cast ballots early in this go round.

Nearly six in ten Obama supporters in Indiana say they would be dissatisfied if Clinton were the nominee -- that's (I believe) the high percentage of Obama supporters who have ever said that.

In both IN and NC, two thirds of Clinton supporters say they'd be dissatisfied if Obama were the nominee -- I believe that's the highest number recorded for that question, too.

The percentage of Clinton voters who say they'd choose McCain over Obama in a general election is approaching 40% in Indiana. Put it another way: in North Carolina, less than HALF of folks who voted today for Hillary Clinton are ready to say today that they'd definitely vote for Obama in a general election.

State elections director Gary Bartlett said turnout was "steady ... not tremendously heavy." The presidential nomination seemed to overshadow primaries for governor, Senate and statewide office.

About three-quarters of the 9,000 people who turned up to see Barack Obama at a rally in Charlotte, North Carolina, on Friday evening were black. Yet, the section of seating directly behind where he spoke was filled overwhelmingly by whites.

The Obama campaign would not say how seats were allocated but it appeared as though a conscious decision had been made to ensure that television pictures showed the senator against a backdrop of white faces.

Bill Clinton evoked the Comeback Kid of old Monday, urging the people of North Carolina to carry his wife to a surprising win on Tuesday. His manner, the crowds he’s pulled, and the sheer number of his stops suggests Clinton may have, at long last, become the asset he was meant to be on the trail—tireless, cheery and charming in the face of substantial odds. Indeed, 49 stops in N.C. without saying something counterproductive and off-message is an accomplishment in itself for the politician formerly known as a master communicator.

He stopped in Sanford, a Sandhills town that hadn’t seen a president since Truman. He stopped in Roxboro, where he reportedly spoke to 2,000 in a town of only 9,000. They are the places where Hillary’s base lives, in Appalachia and along the so-called “Poverty Belt” of southern North Carolina where mill closings and hard times make Hillary’s bread-and-butter message more palpable than Obama’s lofty rhetoric.

For his part, Obama hasn’t ventured west of Hickory, just an hour northwest of Charlotte, where Obama’s big-city voters dwell in droves. Bill also stands in stark contrast to Obama’s closest surrogate, Michelle, who spoke extensively in Fayetteville and Charlotte today without cracking a smile at either event. The local evening news showed Clinton’s preternatural, gee-golly glad-hand routine next to Michelle’s dour, stern-faced lectures about Obama’s greatness. The juxtaposition did the Obamas no favors.

What's a scenario where Clinton wins? Let's award her 65% of the white vote and 18 percent of the black vote, and let's assume that black turnout dips to about 29% of the electorate. Clinton wins here by a half a point.

Journalists who pressed for details about "the abortion speech" or the "gay marriage speech" were told, repeatedly, that the speech was not about those issues at all, really, and would focus exclusively on McCain's longstanding convictions about judicial nominations and the appropriate power of judges. Ok, ok, that's fine, whatever they wanted to call it.

Well, the McCain campaign was right. There is no mention of abortion, or of same-sex marriage, or of most any particular question that the court has had to decide (two exceptions: the Kelo decision and Newdow.)

Republican John McCain castigated Democrat Barack Obama for voting against John Roberts as Supreme Court chief justice in a speech about the kind of judges McCain would nominate.

McCain offered an olive branch to the Christian right in a speech planned for Tuesday at Wake Forest University. The far right has been deeply suspicious of McCain, the expected GOP presidential nominee, because he has clashed with its leaders and worked against them on issues like campaign finance reform.

McCain promised to appoint judges who, in the mold of Roberts and Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito, are likely to limit the reach of the Roe v. Wade decision that legalized abortion.

"They would serve as the model for my own nominees if that responsibility falls to me," McCain said in his prepared speech.

Obama likes to talk up his image as someone who works with Republicans to get things done, McCain said. Yet Obama "went right along with the partisan crowd, and was among the 22 senators to vote against this highly qualified nominee," McCain said.

Senator Obama in particular likes to talk up his background as a lecturer on law, and also as someone who can work across the aisle to get things done. But when Judge Roberts was nominated, it seemed to bring out more the lecturer in Sen. Obama than it did the guy who can get things done. He went right along with the partisan crowd, and was among the 22 senators to vote against this highly qualified nominee. 

And just where did John Roberts fall short, by the Senator's measure?  Well, a justice of the court, as Senator Obama explained it -– and I quote -– should share "one's deepest values, one's core concerns, one's broader perspectives on how the world works, and the depth and breadth of one's empathy." 

These vague words attempt to justify judicial activism -– come to think of it, they sound like an activist judge wrote them. And whatever they mean exactly, somehow Sen. Obama's standards proved too lofty a standard for a nominee who was brilliant, fair-minded, and learned in the law, a nominee of clear rectitude who had proved more than the equal of any lawyer on the Judiciary Committee, and who today is respected by all as the Chief Justice of the United States. 

Somehow, by Sen. Obama's standard, even Judge Roberts didn't measure up. And neither did Justice Samuel Alito.  Apparently, nobody quite fits the bill except for an elite group of activist judges, lawyers, and law professors who think they know wisdom when they see it –- and they see it only in each other.

I have my own standards of judicial ability, experience, philosophy, and temperament.  And Chief Justice Roberts and Justice Samuel Alito meet those standards in every respect.  They would serve as the model for my own nominees if that responsibility falls to me.