Brian Howey, the publisher of the Howey Political Report, a Hoosier State tip sheet, suggested several key differences between the two races that can explain the drastically different outcomes.
The first, said Howey, is that the local Indiana media "relentlessly hammered" Clinton's gas tax proposal -- using local economists to dismiss the merits of the plan. O'Bannon faced nowhere near the level of scrutiny and negative coverage back in 2000.
"It had been 21 years (1979) since the last fuel shock," explained Howey of the O'Bannon race. "This time, it's been coming at us in increments over the last eight years, and I believe most Hoosiers realize there's a bigger problem."
The second major reason that Howey believes Clinton didn't gain the upper hand on the issue in Indiana that she had expected is Sen. Dick Lugar's (R-Ind.) activism on energy issues over the last few years. "While this probably wouldn't poll substantially, there is a growing awareness
," said Howey. "So Hoosiers were a bit wiser when this issue came up this time."
One other explanation is possible. Rather than debate the specifics of Clinton's proposal or come out with a counter-plan of his own, Obama instead used the moment to return to his core message: Clinton was a great game player, but the time for playing games has past.
Obama put considerable faith in the idea that voters would see Clinton's plan as a campaign gimmick rather than a solution to their economic woes. It was a strategy rooted in more than guesswork, as polling leading up to the primary suggested that many Democrats no longer trusted Clinton. Exit polling in Indiana on Tuesday affirmed that sentiment, with just 53 percent of voters calling Clinton "honest and trustworthy".
http://blog.washingtonpost.com/thefix/2008/05/_brian_howey_in_2000.html?hpid=topnews