Thanks to the reader who sent the April 30 ABC-TV story regarding Hillary Clinton's posture on Magnequench, a Valparaiso, Ind., factory that moved to China.

"We've got to elect a president next January who's going to remember Magnequench," Clinton told voters in Valparaiso on April 12.

"It seems, however, that when it comes to Magnequench there's quite a bit that Clinton has conveniently forgotten," writes Jake Tapper.

To wit: the plant was sold to the Chinese during the administration of Bill Clinton. A former veep with the company, Andy Albers, says he told the Clinton people the story, but it was ignored by both Hillary and her sidekick Evan Bayh.

"'I told them all the truth, but it didn't go anywhere," Albers told ABC News. "Evan Bayh and Hillary Clinton are living in some false reality here, making all these false accusations.'"

Here's the ABC link if you want to search for the story.

http://abcnews.go.com/

Longtime Star employee/secretary/telephone maven Deb Bostic retired from the Star last Friday.

Another escapee reports that the next day, on Saturday, Deb was back at her desk. Someone at the paper had called her in, because there was nobody to answer the phones or open mail.

Only at the Star, where Hillary Clinton today got the paper's endorsement. One observer noted: "That has to be good for Obama."

Hoosier superdelegate Joe Andrew's letter sent today, announcing his decision to switch rather than fight -- he has courageously withdrawn his support for Hillary Clinton and now backs Barack Obama -- says a great deal about the toll this primary campaign has taken on the Democratic party. But more importantly, it is a welcome testament to a man's struggle with his conscience and his tough willingness to stand with the most principled candidate.

Andrew, a heavy hitter, chairman of the Democratic National Committee during the Clinton years, does not believe that this protracted, painful and public dispute is energizing for the Dems, as Hillary Clinton has stated. The infighting, he argues in his May 1 "Dear Friends" epistle, is hurting their chances to elect the next president. John McCain, he says, is the beneficiary.

"Let us come together right now behind an inspiring leader who not only has the audacity to challenge the old divisive politics, but the audacity to make us all hope for a better America," writes Andrew.

The "old divisive politics" is the key code phrase.

Clinton, with her airs of entitlement, with her people who put the squeeze on, who call defectors "Judas," represents the pandering past; Obama, the community organizer, the grateful guy who believes in sharing the wealth, is the future. Andrew thus urges Indiana to "reject the old negative politics and vote for true change."

"Only a cynic would be critical of Barack Obama inspiring millions." he writes.

Here's to hope prevailing Tuesday -- not cynicism.

Thanks to Bruce Hetrick for forwarding a copy of the letter Andrew sent out. Here is the link, if you want to read it in its entirety:

http://www.ylpr.com/joeandrew/

As if this Democratic primary campaign hasn't been painful enough already, we now have the fallout from Rev. Jeremiah Wright: his remarks Monday to the National Press Club remarks and Barack Obama's final repudiation of his pastor of 20 years.

The New York Times today quotes Obama: “At a certain point, if what somebody says contradicts what you believe so fundamentally, and then he questions whether or not you believe it in front of the National Press Club, then that’s enough,” Mr. Obama said. “That’s a show of disrespect to me. It’s also, I think, an insult to what we’ve been trying to do in this campaign.”

How bad is it? Bad enough that "Morning Joe" Scarborough of MSNBC, a devoted Hillary Clinton backer, said this morning, with apparent sympathy, that he foresees nothing but "sunny days" ahead for Obama. There's a general consensus that Obama's reaction set the correct tone: he was typically unflappable but firm in his denunciation of Wright's nutty antics.

If not for the hypersensitivity of this race -- and the suggestion on some blogs that the Rev. Wright has been encouraged by Hillary backers -- this would not fundamentally be a big deal.

Why so? Because in the real world, many adults, and sadly some children, have experienced what Obama -- and his wife and children and others close to the family -- are now feeling: betrayal by a trusted pastor or priest.

We've all heard stories about the archbishop or the rabbi or the Baptist preacher who failed us. Usually the scenario is exactly what Obama is enduring. We put our trust in a vaulted person, we believe in their message, we are inspired by their example. But -- not invariably, but too often -- that person turns out to have the same human frailties as the rest of us. Sometimes, even moreso.

Wright's sin is one of pride. Gene Robinson of the Washington Post said the other day in a column that initially, he hoped Wright's early silence meant simply that the Chicago minister had "turned the other cheek," as Jesus would have us do. But his noisy spectacle at the Press Club proves that he is just another man -- and one who obviously loves the limelight, and who has no qualms about hurting a member of his congregation on the national stage. Or a presidential hopeful

Hillary said it first: "Shame on you!" But the shame is hardly on Obama; it is on this phony pastor.

Will this hurt Obama with voters? Obama himself said that remains to be seen. It shouldn't, though. What happened between the younger idealistic man and the older cunning minister is the stuff of life. Now move on, focus on the issues, and Go Barack!

Whatever your politics, this Democratic primary is one for the books. The highs and lows, twists and turns, ins and outs, will produce good analysis and copy for years to come.

While it is sometimes hard to see the forest for the trees, it seems obvious that Obama has trouble winning those core Dem constituents: the working-class, older women and white guys. In my view, that may say more about race relations than Hillary's tough-lady, attack-dog strategy and Barack's not wearing a flag pin.

The New York Times today -- which endorsed Hill -- has a good piece about the cost of her caustic campaign. Sure, she may win -- anything is possible in this free-for-all, although her victory is still doubtful -- but her jabs are just plain getting on some people's last nerves.

To quote the grey lady:

"In the paper's Wednesday edition, the editorial board which endorsed Clinton's White House bid earlier this year says the New York senator's "negativity" is doing "harm to her, her opponent, her party and the 2008 election."

"The Pennsylvania campaign, which produced yet another inconclusive result on Tuesday, was even meaner, more vacuous, more desperate, and more filled with pandering than the mean, vacuous, desperate, pander-filled contests that preceded it," the board writes.

"The paper finds fault in Clinton's latest campaign ad, which includes an image of Osama bin Laden, and asks, "Who do you think has what it takes?"

"Mrs Clinton became the first Democratic candidate to wave the bloody shirt of 9/11," they write, adding that it is a tactic that is "torn right from Karl Rove’s playbook."