Pardon me for dumping kerosene on a fire but this shrillness about race, speaking as a black American, is indicative of the continuing problem we have with the issue. We don't have a mature attitude about it and we haven't talked about it seriously as a nation. President Clinton tried, appointed a commission headed by the estimable John Hope Franklin, and was largely ridiculed for it.

That said, Sen. Obama did benefit from black solidarity because he was viewed by blacks in SC as both a serious and a viable candidate, just as Jackson was in '84 and Sharpton was not. There's nothing wrong with that. Voters usually support candidates with whom they identify. Why pretend otherwise? That doesn't mean that blacks weren't voting for someone, as everyone does, who would be strong on issues they care about. Obama would hardly have done as well, for all his being black, running on a Republican platform. So why the surprise that Obama would get the support of SC blacks 4-to-1 over Clinton? Of course support shifted his way after Iowa because that was the moment his viability was demonstrated.

But this constant parsing of every word Clinton or Obama says for race or gender cards is getting out of hand. The media could help tone it down (unlikely though it is) but so could we all.

But the fact that so many of these posts casually sling insults, epithets and hatred is vivid proof that Obama, much as I would like to see him become president, will be unable to restore Camelot in this post-Vietnam/Watergate era. Sadly, that genie will never be put back in the bottle. We can't even restore civility to public discourse.

RE: zl, Interesting perspective from Europe.

Dave,
thanks for reacting. You're right, it's difficult to grasp the vastness of the US from Europe....the cost of a nationwide campaign must be huge, with some candidates better poised than others to get funding. And just like in the US, party financing (or should I say, candidate financing), is extremely problematic over here in Europe as well. Most of the recent large political scandals in Europe have all involved illegal donations and secret bank accounts. And what's worse, the parties cannot seem to agree on a system that would be fair to everyone. So I see your point. Maybe the party should demand that all candidates transfer their contributions to a single account from which the candidates are then funded.... It's difficult.

A word about the role of the Kennedy's. These endorsements by families within the party actually enhance these large divides and rifts between the Democratic candidates and within the party. It's difficult to grasp sometimes what the party stands for exactly. What's the difference (politically) between the Clintons and the Kennedy's? I wouldn't be able to say. Do the Kennedy's (still) carry a lot of weight? And to whom? What does it say about Obama? Don't the Kennedy's really only publicly cherish the memory of the once great John F.? What does their endorsement contribute to contemporary American politics?

Political families exist in some European countries, in others the whole concept is regarded a 'horreur', or at least controversial. Still, the kenendy's are highly regarded over here (there isn't a town in Europe without a street, square or bridge named after John F.) and anything the Kennedy's say is regarded as 'good', without really knowing what is actually being said.

The Lone Wacko asked why immigration was not in the SC Democratic primary exit poll results.

Maybe because the Democratic electorate has a different set of priorities, such as concerns about ending Bush's war in Iraq, health care, and the economy (solving the problem for ALL Americans, not just the rich and super-rich)?

In a poll taken just before the Iowa caucuses, the top issues for the GOOPers were immigration (20%, and a tie for second of the war, terrorism and 'religious values' (each with 13%). Health care got 3% of the GOOPer attention.

For the Democratic electorate, the top issue was ending Bush's war in Iraq (28%), and health care was second (22%) in importance.

The question I have is what does single issue Lou (immigration nut case) Dobbs have to say on solving the problem of the lack of affordable health care for ALL US citizens? Will deporting all the illegals help solve the health care problem? Will deporting all the illegals end Bush's war in Iraq? If so, how?

As to illegals, what about the old GOOPer mantra of why new laws when there already are laws on the books that haven't been enforced? If we tried to enforce the existing laws already on the books that say it is illegal for a business to knowingly hire illegals, it would go a long way to stem the flow of illegals. The reason they are here is to work and send money home. If there's no work to be found, they would go home on their own dime, and we wouldn't have to deport them (at taxpayer expense).

"Caroline Kennedy's endorsement should help Obama make that connection -- either explicitly or implicitly."

Ted, Caroline Kennedy's and other endorsements don't represent anti-establishment politics. These endorsers are establishment figures. Obama is corrupt and is simply out to win! His habitual actions are not out of the status quo!

Black voters overwhelmingly supported Bill Clinton and all was right with the world. Black voters overwhelmingly support Barack Obama and they are voting race over issues. 4000 citizens voted on the first day of early voting in Chicago, up from a high of 900. The prospect of voting for Barack Obama has energized young people as not seen since the Kennedy years. This has to be good for our country and our democracy, whatever the outcome.

Regarding the Tribune story of '05 the Chicago Tribune endorsed Senator Obama on Sunday January 27, 2007.
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/opinion/chi-0127edit1jan27,0,847324.story

295,000 votes is impressive regardless of where they came from.

Wow, an impressive number of blogs. By the way, we miss you being on the Countdown and Hardball(?)
I have a question that no one is addressing, what is behind the sudden demise of the re-count in New Hampshire?
The mess with the counting machines is of considerable interest to me but I am sure that it is by anyone who lived through 2000 and/or 2004! Cillizza, thanks for the platform -- small that it is.
Why no interest by the newsies on this subject. They ran out of money? What is that suppose to mean for the upcoming 2008 election(s)?
Is 2008 going to be another black bag election? With the thin news coming out of New Hampshire, I am getting a sick feeling in the pit of my stomach!!!!!

I think Obama's victory in South Carolina is deceptively weak. By only carrying 25% of the white vote he failed to prove he can truly broaden his base, in the one early state perfectly suited for him to do so. Clinton is still very much the favorite, particularly with her strength with white women. Obama should have pulled 60-65% of the vote and done better with whites. Also, from here on out, accusing Hillary Clinton of race-baiting loses effectiveness and can in fact greatly damage Obama, regardless of any level of truth to the charge. From a distance, it looks like Obama (and particularly his supporters) are overly sensitive on the subject.

The notion that Obama is nothing but a pile of words is a myth, and I hope the Kennedy endorsement will help in clearing up that misconception. Obama's smart enough to become president of the Harvard Law Review -- the most prestigious position for law students around the country -- and has been described by Harvard professors as one of the brightest people to come through Harvard in the last few decades.

So a white 2 year Senator with an equally distinguished resume could also get away running a campaign based on "hope," "unity" "transformational politics" and expecting Republicans to roll over for his Harvard Law Review credentials ? The link, however fuzzy, between "biracialism" and "national unity" obviously precludes running as a "black candidate". For better or worse it's an inescapable reality -- we wouldn't be having this discussion were Obama white. And I, for one, could never vote for anyone underqualified with the intent of shamelessly, arrogantly using skin color to deflect a lack of governing experience. But
it won't last...and the sooner all the candidates are held to the same standards as a white man the sooner everyone can get down to the work it takes to bring whatever change they are talking about to fruition.

jimd - "Get over it, it is not a sign of racism, sexism, etc. for a demographic group that has generally been excluded from power to line up behind a member of the group."

Um, actually I think that it is. It may be a reason for it and it may, to some extent explain it, and one may even expect it but it is a sign of racism, sexism, etc...

Hey Wander: Florida does not count. They broke the rules by moving their date and the DNC penalized them. Super Tuesday will not be knockout blow for any candidate. All indications are that this thing is going all the way to the convention without a nominee. It will be decided by the super-delegates and with big name endorsements from Kerry, Leahy and now Kennedy tomorrow it does look like Obama may have the upper hand in a brokered convention scenario.

Congrats to Obama on S.C. But historically, this is a blip. He'll lose in Florida big time on Tuesday. And February 5 is going to be an embarrassment for him.

So S.C. may seem important now, but in reality it's Obama's last hurrah.

But at least there's Illinois.

The notion that Obama is nothing but a pile of words is a myth, and I hope the Kennedy endorsement will help in clearing up that misconception. Obama's smart enough to become president of the Harvard Law Review -- the most prestigious position for law students around the country -- and has been described by Harvard professors as one of the brightest people to come through Harvard in the last few decades.

In Illinois, his signature legislation included the most sweeping ethics reform in many, many years, as well as criminal justice reforms that initially met stiff resistance but ended up passing easily, and an expansion of health care coverage -- all despite being in the minority.

Obama opposed the decision to invade Iraq and, under no obligation to do so as he planned a Senate run, publicly declared as much at a time when opposition to the war was deeply unpopular.

In the US Senate, he's passed ethics reform, helped secure loose Russian weapons, helped plan government response to a potential flu epidemic, and passed the "Google for government" bill.

If the measure of a candidate's readiness is their past record of success, I don't think there's any way you can argue that Obama isn't ready. I certainly challenge you to come up with a comparable list of concrete accomplishments made by Mrs. Clinton in her "35 years of service".

Look, experience is nice. But experience is a far worse predictor of success in the White House than is past success. So don't make experience a surrogate for competence, because it isn't.

And that's not even getting into the whole question of honesty and respect for democracy.

anthonyhillary08 - you don't have to worry about Obama reuniting with his stepdad - he died years ago. If you had read his first book you would know this.

anthonyhillary08 - you're wrong - Obama's stepfather passed away years ago!!! Just shows how uninformed you are.

M_in_A,

Thanks for the clarification of your votes. That makes it a lot easier to understand. I would add in explanation of my votes, especially when for democrats, that with the exception of 1972, none were for the candidate I supported in the primary. I loved Perot's economic message, but I felt he had too little regard for some of the subtleties of the constitution.

I didn't see those IRC comments. I just got back from a church convention. If you'd rather not clog the board, you can email me at optimyst at gmail dot com. I'd be happy to respond.

Sorry, but I'm way too scared of the Bradley effect to take any joy in this. There are way too many hard liners in the opposition (and I include certain people from Illinois/Arkansas/New York as part of the opposition) to allow this man to be successful. We have an opportunity to drive a stake in the heart of the Greedy Ol' Party for a generation, but I'm afraid we may throw it away in our wish for political correctness. I hate myself for saying it, but I've seen enough racism in this country to believe I know how this is going to turn out.

Hey, Senator Obama was SUPPOSED to win in South Carolina. It would only really be a story if he did not carry the black vote overwhelmingly. As for the "Clinton Machine" how would he fare against the Republican Swift Boaters if he does win the Democratic nomination?

FIRST BECOMING PRESIDENT SLICK OBAMA WILL PROMOTE THE FOLLOWING CHANGE
1 BUILD A TAJ MAHAH LIKE TOMB FOR DAD IN KENYA
2 CHANGE THE SENATOR OBAMA SCHOOL NAME IN KENYA TO PRESIDENT OBAMA SCHOOL
3 PROMOTE AGENDA TO PUSH KENYA OUT OF POVERTY BY ASSIGNING SPECIAL DIPLOMAT TO BRING IT TO TOP PRIORITY
4 BUILD ROAD, HOSPITAL AND INFRASTRUCTURE AROUND HALF OF HIS RELATIVE CIRCLE IN KENYA
5 BRING HALF OF HIS RELATIVE CIRCLE IN KENYA TO VISIT THE WHITE HOUSE FOR SLEEP OVER IN AIR FORCE ONE
6 VISIT INDONESIA IN FIRST YEAR TO REUNITE WITH HIS STEPDAD
7 TAKE POCKET CHANGE OUT OF AMERICAN TO FUND RELATIVE CIRCLE IN HIS KENYAN' RELATIVES

MA has 121 D delegates. I suppose having Sen. Kennedy's endorsement would be desirable to BHO in that respect.

If change or "turning the page" is the rallying cry for many, then I would think that Obama would quietly ask Ted Kennedy not to endorse anyone. Ted Kennedy is as galvanizing to Republicans and many independents as the modern day Hillary. Turning the page means exactly that..giving the impression of going back to old world Democrat ways offers no hope for a new beginning.

A week ago I started saying it had been, in my opinion, a bad week for Clinton. Although I've favored Obama, I liked the Clinton comeback in New Hampshire because 1) I thought a contested primary race would be better preparation for the general and 2) I wouldn't mind voting for Clinton, either.

Following NH, however, I became annoyed and then dismayed by the evolution of her conduct (not Bill's conduct--he isn't a loose cannon, he's a purposefully directed agent)--purposefully basing her NV and SC campaigns on the 'Straw Man' fallacy.

Given that, I was happy with how SC played out last night. My satisfaction is less with the overall results, than in the obvious repudiation of the Clintons' actions. I hope the lesson is that such tactics not only don't help, but are counterproductive--exit interviews showed a widespread view that those actions had turned a substantial number of voters away from Clinton.

I very much hope the D race becomes more substantive and respectful--changing the theme to that the Ds have two excellent candidates either of whom could make a very good President (versus the Rs, of whom only one of the remaining four is qualified). That might even set the stage for the first non-slimy general election in decades.

Hillary and Bill may not want to put an end to the "electorate divided by race" narrative, but voters across all demographic lines in South Carolina did.

In a record turnout in South Carolina, Obama won 52% of white voters under 30, ran even with Hillary among white men, and 70 percent of white voters said they would be satisfied if Mr. Obama won the Democratic nomination, all in a state that still waves the confederate flag at the capitol.

As Sen. Obama said in his victory speech - this race is about the past versus the future. Bill and Hillary's old style politics belong in the past.

On Feb.5th, almost half the country has the chance to focus the nation on the challenges of the future.

JT

Hillary and Bill may not want to put an end to the "electorate divided by race" narrative, but voters across all demographic lines in South Carolina did.

In a record turnout in South Carolina, Obama won 52% of white voters under 30, ran even with Hillary among white men, and 70 percent of white voters said they would be satisfied if Mr. Obama won the Democratic nomination, all in a state that still waves the confederate flag at the capitol.

As Sen. Obama said in his victory speech - this race is about the past versus the future. Bill and Hillary's old style politics belong in the past.

On Feb.5th, California has the chance to focus the nation on the challenges of the future.

JT

According to the Boston Globe, Ted Kennedy is set to endorse Obama tomorrow:

http://www.boston.com/news/politics/politicalintelligence/2008/01/ted_kennedy_end.html

As someone who has supported Hillary from the beginning, the past few weeks of Bill running his mouth has really made me reconsider my vote on Feb 5th. While I genuinely believe Hillary would make a wonderful president, I just wish she wasn't a Clinton.

According to the Boston Globe, Ted Kennedy is set to endorse Obama tomorrow:

http://www.boston.com/news/politics/politicalintelligence/2008/01/ted_kennedy_end.html

As someone who has supported Hillary from the beginning, the past few weeks of Bill running his mouth has really made me reconsider my vote on Feb 5th. While I genuinely believe Hillary would make a wonderful president, I just wish she wasn't a Clinton.

optimyst -

I hope you see this. I voted for Anderson and BigEars [Perot], twice. Others herre know that I attended a lecture by Archibald Cox in '96 at UT Law School, where he contended, in passing, that either nominee would be impeachable for the foreign funds each had accepted. In a fit of ethical pique I voted for Perot - again.

I voted for GWB for GovTX in '98. But I was convinced he was not presidential material. TX is a weak governor state. No serious executive skill is required. If Rick Perry can do it, it cannot be difficult.

I asked you to comment on three comments I
made about the IRC the other day. I'll dig them up and post them later if you respond here.

Thanks.

When will Obama-Fanatics get into their skulls that the REPUBLICANS ARE THE PROBLEM.

Democrats have tried apeasement.

It hasn't worked.

What part of "Nancy Pelosi" don't you understand???

The old,the tired,the afraid, the dull and the defeated will try to crush the optimism of another young generation of Americans with their votes.....the same way three bullets and another miserable war crushed the optimism of a young generation in the 1960's. Hopefully, there are enough brave Americans left to stand up and say, "Yes, We Can."

"It is a deflating story of self-serving politics as usual and I want to know if any of you have follow-up information, exculpatory or not, that would be useful... I can add some inferential evidence - no prosecution of BHO for insider trading has ensued."

I wonder if the enthusiasm for prosecution is diminished due to the investments resulting in losses. It is difficult to reach a conclusion about propriety given only one source, that implies and infers much, but with little proof.

The real question the media should be asking is:

"CAN HILLARY CLINTON EXPAND HER BASE BEYOND OLDER WHITE FEMINIST WOMEN?"

Obama has the young feminist women, the young in general, the white males, the entire African American vote, and everybody who sick of triangulating, doubletalking, neocon-sympathising AIPAC supporters.

Can Hillary become more than that? There's no evidence yet. But the media will willfully turn a blind eye to the question while ranting on about race, race, race like a Dixiecrat leftover on bad moonshine.

I wonder how many people were turned off by the idea of the Clintons as a team, thus more of the same. I was. After that
great Caroline Kennedy piece this morning, I am fired up! I'm
ready to go!

This election can truly change the world. Go, Obama!

nfahringer

Bill2810 had the audacity to notice:

"Obama will need to make gains among white voters..." Did I miss something or did he not win Iowa?

Sure he did, but that was like more than 24 hours ago, and you can't expect a member of the establishment media to remember all the way back that far. LOL, not when the memo has gone out from Bill Clinton that Obama is suddenly, inexplicably now the "black candidate" (despite cleaning up in Iowa and essentially polling even with Hillary in all-white NH). You know how obedient these Post reporters are when the word comes down from the establishment.

Yes, it's sad. But that's our Washington Press CORPSE. The same one that marched in step to get us into Iraq, burying all the WMD skeptics on p.16 and then still lauding the neocon voices long after they were so spectacularly and disastrously wrong (and marginalizing the Scott Ritters and the Howard Deans who were SPOT-ON CORRECT, PRESCIENT, WISE, SOBER AND MATURE). Don't forget who's in power and who still owns the Washington media. Don't expect a reality check because it is simply NOT IN THEIR INTERESTS.

My impression is that Obama is the more qualified. At lease he figured the left elite would so view him, even if he is now finding otherwise. What has Hillary done other than wait to become President? What is the Senate record of the two? That is the only way to decide who is more qualified.

Another important consideration should be who can get elected. Hillary will galvanize republicans in November like Obama will not. Indeed, my view is many Republicans like Obama. I certainly do.

Think of it this way. Imagine that Laura Bush were running for President. How would Democrats view it? GW Bush would be there advising her how to keep the Iraq war going, how to increase the National debt well beyond the present 5.9 B, how to drill in ANWR, how to put up nuclear plants near cities, etc. Carl Rove would no doubt be pulling the strings behind the curtains and so on.

GW Bush would be out on the campaign trail visiting black communities telling them how much they mean to him and Laura; and how much they appreciate their votes.

In another decade the Bush daughters might even run for President.

Does anything think that Hillary would be having an easier time if she didn't have Bill as her running mate?

This guy is from the 90s.

To the Golf Course thee ! I actually forgot that Hillary was running this week, I've seen so much of Bill. The Onion article had it right - if anyone reads the Onion.

Mark_in_Austin,

That was an amazing person statistic, not having voted for the winning presidential candidate since 1964. Now, in analyzing that I'm going to assume (until you correct me) that this wasn't caused by your failure to vote or your propensity for fringe candidates or parties. Under this assumption, here's how you voted (to be fair, I've divulged mine in parentheses):

1968 Humphrey (too young to vote)
1972 McGovern (McGovern)
1976 Ford (Carter)
1980 Carter (Anderson)
1984 Mondale (Mondale)
1988 Dukakis (Dukakis)
1992 Bush (Clinton)
1996 Dole (Clinton)
2000 Gore (Gore)
2004 Kerry (Kerry)

If that's true, that's extraordinary. You are indeed an oracle, if only of what's not going to happen. I will surely comb your posts much more carefully now.

Actually I have a hard time reconciling the rationale for your votes in 1976 & 1980, then in 1988 & 1992. In each of those instances, you voted for the incumbent 4 years after you voted against him for his first term. I'd love to hear your thoughts if this is true.

Sources say a Ted Kennedy endorsement for Obama is coming soon. That would be huge.

I'd much prefer Obama over Clinton, as I believe this country sorely needs to turn the page. Alas, the '90s, the decade I came of age, are over.

But I sure hope the "race doesn't matter" chant doesn't get repeated. That is not a smart slogan. It's a bit like saying "don't think of an elephant."

Older Democrats and older independents will have some trouble pulling the lever for a black man (just as they might have difficulty pulling the lever for a woman). Shouting "race doesn't matter" in their ear guarantees that it will matter.

I'd rather chant "turn the page."

Ted Kennedy will NEVER endorse Obama. He's too intelligent for that. He won't come out and endorse anyone.

Posted by: Spring_Rain | January 27, 2008 11:56 AM

Actually, that is the rumor sweeping Washington. George Stephanopolus asked Obama about it this morning on ABC. Obama declined to answer, but from his expression and tone of voice I would expect the endorsement soon. The ABC talking heads certainly believe it is forthcoming.

With all of the microscopic dissection of the voting patterns in each primary or caucus, everyone seems to be missing the big picture:

There have been four primaries/caucuses.

In two (IA and SC), Obama won decisively, in both the popular vote and delegates. In the other two, Clinton won narrowly in the popular vote, but evenly split the delegates with Obama in one (NH), and got one fewer than him in the other (NEV). Obama now has 63 delegates to Clinton's 48.

Looks like Obama's doing pretty well, but the media sure aren't portraying it that way.

Somebody tell me what's wrong with this analysis.

AHHHHHHHH!
Chris,
Please please please STOP falling into the racial stereotypes. Of course you have to mention them (although it would be nice if somebody pundits and analysts would rise above it) But why aren't the media qualifying the "Obama can't rely on black voters" with the FACTS that he soundly beat Clinton in Iowa and nearly beat here in New Hampshire, which are white white white. He has already PROVED that he can attract non blacks for Godsakes. It is shallow of journalists not to distinguish between a southern state where whites and blacks often do what the opposite does, and other states like California, New York, the Midwest that does not have the same history. So, yes, you have to mention the racial divisions, but a fair journalists should also mention what happened in Iowa and New Hampshire!

David Allen

mark_in_austin,
Read the Tribune story. I have a couple thoughts on it. First, it is almost a year old. I have not heard about this until now which makes me wonder why? Secondly, the story seems to imply that Obama was trying to make a few quick bucks on information he had that others may not have had. Regardless of insider trading issues, just the appearance of this might be enough to put a dent in the "different kind of politician" veneer his campaign is based on. I think those people that are considering voting for Obama need to put this in perspective and realize there are no people or pols that are perfect. JFK certainly wasn't. Neither is Obama. This is bad from a campaign POV because of the type of campaign he is running but in the large scope of things, it's not the biggest sin for a politician.

Ted Kennedy will NEVER endorse Obama. He's too intelligent for that. He won't come out and endorse anyone.

Mark

It is disturbing to be sure. But I understand that the Trib is a strident opponent of Obama. We'll see how this plays out but, even if the allegations turn out to be false, the accusation is out there and will get more attention than a story clearing him would.

Random thoughts:

I see that none of the Hillary supporters see fit to mention that Obama won a majority of young, white voters. His appeal is at least as much generational as it is racial.

The Caroline Kennedy Schlossberg endorsement, coupled with the likely Ted Kennedy endorsement will cement the JFK/RFK aura around Obama. This is huge.

The notion that Republicans are voting in SC to help Obama and defeat Hillary because they fear Hillary is total nonsense. Every Republican commentator I have heard is saying exactly the opposite. Republican politicians will say they are dying to run against Hillary - it would be the best way to motivate their currently dispirited base. Look at the red state Democratic officeholders lining up behind Obama - they know that Hillary would be a tremendous drag on down-ticket Democrats.

I see people are shocked, shocked that a majority of African Americans are voting for the first African American with a legitimate shot at the White House. Well, duh!!! I don't see anyone claiming that the overwhelming Mormon support for Romney is a problem. JFK carried a lot of normally Republican Catholics in 1960, Hillary is attracting a lot of female support as the first woman with a legitimate shot. Get over it, it is not a sign of racism, sexism, etc. for a demographic group that has generally been excluded from power to line up behind a member of the group.

I could care less whether Obama takes every state, and then the Dem nomination-this white Dem voter will not be voting for him- not now, not ever. Any Presidential candidate who talks about "scoring some blow" "whenever he could afford it" and selling on the side, is not someone I want for President-because it denotes weakness under pressure-and pressure, my friends, is something Barack Obama has never had to face-EVER. And Barack Obama has never had to wheel and deal in this town in order to push forward an agenda-you can have all the lofty ideals and grand rhetoric you want-but in the end YOU THE PRESIDENT have to do the wheeling and dealing to get intractable oppositions to vote your platform-and if you have no experience with that, then you're going to be a disaster, and the worse things get, the more someone like Barack Obama will turn to something-to relieve the stress-or he will let it explode all over everyone else in a hugely inappropriate and very public way.

I've had enough of a President who caused disaster in the world and domestically by his naivete. I WILL NOT BE RESPONSIBLE FOR DOING THAT TO THIS COUNTRY-WE NEED THE MOST TRIED AND TESTED LEADERSHIP-BARACK OBAMA IS AS FAR FROM THAT MODEL AS COULD POSSIBLE BE.

And as for Caroline Kennedy's endorsement-I could give a damn-she is one of those rich white voters who gets a feel-good for wanting to vote for a black man with the same elitist academic credentials that she has-her endorsement means exactly nothing.

mark_in_austin

That is right. I was thinking of the Massie trial. Darrow got life for L&L when the public was clmammering for death.

Only 77% of the respondents said they'd be happy with Billary as the nominee. That represents about the same amount of Ds lost to Bush in 2004. The Billary team certainly won't attract many Independents are Republicans so how can they win? There are not enough 60+ year old white women to drag them across the finish line. (By the way I'm a 60+ year old white woman and I voted for Obama!!).

zl,
Interesting perspective from Europe. I think that you are correct in that the way this Democratic primary is shaping up benefits the Republicans. However, the one day voting would heavily favor the candidates with the most money. The US is huge compared to most countries and it's really not feasible for most to be able to campaign across the US for a one day vote. The primary system, while it certainly has a lot of room for improvment, allows for more candidates to be able to compete and present their ideas to America.

I hope you will continue to post as an outsider/European view would be a great addition to this blog.

Jim, what do you think of the Chi Trib story I posted at 11:21A? I know it would be a prosecutor's wet dream to go after a big 'un like BHO for insider trading [remember Martha Stewart] so I am hesitant to draw the worst inferences from the story. But I have not seen any follow - up, and it "troubles" me.

~

SC does not change the fact that Sen. Obama is not ready for prime time.

Hillary Clinton has been villified for 15 years -- for no good reason as far as I can tell -- and she is still standing and has a ton of support across the board.

Right-wing radio is continuing to spread a social norm that strong women are scary.

It's amazing to me.

I hope that the American voters will come to their senses and elect Hillary Clinton as President.

~

"I recall that when Clarence Darrow defended Lub and Loepold on the island of Hawaii"

Posted by: rodhug | January 27, 2008 11:23

What kind of racist drivel are you spouting? Furthermore, the Leopold and Loeb case was in Chicago. They were guilty, had confessed and Darrow, through his eloquence, managed to avoid a death sentence.

Barack Obama won South Carolina not because he is black, but because he is the best candidate to represent all of the American people.

Roadhug, you must have faded memories. The L&L trial is the most famous Chicago trial of the 20th C. Beats the "Chi 7".

Hawaii? That would have been one hell of a change of venue motion!

will congratulate you for at least starting to recognize the methods by which Democrats have played politics for the last quarter century or so.

Posted by: dave | January 27, 2008 08:31 AM

I agree bu the Republicans aren at least as bad, if not worse? Do the names Lee Atwater and Karl Rove ring a bell?

That is why so many of us unafilliated voters despise both parties.

Hillart is competent candidate.

Obama is "tall dark and handsome"

Guess who SC voted for?

Is it any wonder the US keeps getting its butt kicked on the world stage?

Yet again, we chose "the guy we'd rather have a beer with"

In the southern states where blacks are the majority, most elective offices are held be blacks, even if the office holders are incompetent (recall post Katrina). This has been the case since reconstruction days. The same is true on the African continent since white rule was overthrown. And now incompetence, near famine, and rampent disease reins supreme on the continent. These are just the facts.

I recall that when Clarence Darrow defended Lub and Loepold on the island of Hawaii, he said before the trial that his case was hopeless. The jury was all natives. Up to then Darrow had not lost a criminal case. A high percent of whites are reported to have voted for Hillary, even though her qualifications are no better and maybe lesser than Obama's. Racisim is alive and well in liberal circles where for decades the claim was that only Republicans are racist.

Trog, at 10:29A, posted a link to an article in the Chi Trib from March of last year. Trog's link relied on a Chi Trib ID, which I have - but for those of you who do not, try

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/politics/chi-0703090126mar09,1,3699761.story

It is a deflating story of self-serving politics as usual and I want to know if any of you have follow-up information, exculpatory or not, that would be useful.

I can add some inferential evidence - no prosecution of BHO for insider trading has ensued.

Not all that reassuring, I know.

Some very good posts.

It's important to note that domestic issues were at the top of the voters list, no matter what their race, gender or age group was. Voters in SC united behind the candidate who could best bring about the change needed in this country. This is why Obama won SC. Give the black voters in SC more credit - they voted for the person who's message they believed in, and for the person who they believed can bring about the changes in leadership that is needed. All the enlightened voters in SC who supported Obama should be commended for seeing past the Clinton's attack on Obama.

Obama looked and sounded presidential in his speech last night. It kept to his message of all Americans working together can help bring about the positive changes that are needed. It was inspiring and gives hope, at a time we desperately need to have hope.

It was interesting to watch Bill Clinton last night speaking in Missouri. He spent the first five minutes talking about all the wonderful things he has done since leaving office and what his perspectives, it sounded as if he were running for president. Looking at the faces of people standing behind him, they looked really bored - like they did not want to be there. They politely clapped but did not cheer.

No matter what - the Clintons will not take this defeat lightly, their egos will not allow that. Look what they did after Iowa. They will come out fighting, smearing and schmoozing even harder. It's going to get really nasty in the next week and half.

The Obama campaign and its supporters just reminds me of another radical movement . If he wins the democratic nomination people ( especially independents ) will set back and think and come to the conclusion that obama never ran is own state so how could he run 50 states . So we will end up with another republican in the White House and another four years in Iraq

Mark_in_austin,
I concur that BC was eminently capable, really bright and I consider him the best "politician" in my lifetime. I think it's great that the youth at least appear to be involved. History does not bode well for this continuation but we can always hope. I don't know if they did or how well they did exit polling in the 1960 election but it would be fascinating to compare the data on JFK, BHO and the youth vote.

Yet again we choose the candidate "we'd rather have a beer with"

Is it any wonder we keep slipping in the world rankings of "quality of life?"

Congraulation, obama-nuts, you're trashed the first viable woman candidiate we had for president withoutout ever letting her policy ideas be heard.

I'm sure it will be of great comfort for all the people who wind up without health insurance because of Obama-nuts.

The American people deserve better than this!!!

It seems important to note that the proportion of the African-American vote that went for Obama did not change at all between Nevada and South Carolina - in both states over 80% went for Obama - what changed was the composition of the electorates. In Nevada, African-Americans made up only 15% of the electorate, whereas in South Carolina, they made up over 50%. Something to think about going forward!

Jesse Jackson also won SC in 1984 & 1988. The outcome of SC primary is loud and clear, Obama has defined his self as the Black Candidate. His win in SC was not a surprise, I knew the black community will support him because he's black totally disregarding issues that matters to them. If Obama wins the nomination, even lifelong democrats will vote for any republican candidate. Sensible Americans still look for experience which Obama doesn't have, a person that will stand up and take responsibility and be held accountable instead of just voting "present", a person that shows leadership which Obama haven't done while subcommittee chairman for Europeans and Foreign Relations. Inspiring words cannot solve problems we are facing now, it requires action and leadership. His connection with Rezko, his major campaign fundraiser all the way to 2004.

Obama will carry all states with a black majority of voters.

And SC will still vote republican in the presdential election.

Obama's use of the race card will cost him

One item I have not seen discussed is the voter turnout. Once again, I believe, we see an energized electorate. Will the increased voter turnout materialize on Feb. 5? Will this phenomena persist throughout the primary? Which of the candidates will benefit from this and why? If this trend does persist, will this help the Democrats in November?

Over the past few weeks Rush Limbaugh has been off and on attacking Hillary and not commenting on Obama. Apparently he thinks Hillary will be the nominee. Rush has often said that he strives for combat with Democrats as a first priority. His radio show would lose its appeal without the underpinning excitement of the fight with Democrats. John McCain has always been ready to find solutions working as a bipartisan when necessary, as when he formed the gang of 14 to get Samuel Alito nominated for Supreme Court Justice. McCain could have the followed the unimaginative method preferred by Rush at the time which was to simply force the nomination upon the Dems by blocking the possibility of a filibuster and thereby ratcheted up long-term partisan bitterness. This would have fit Rush's style, but not McCain's. The prime difference between McCain and Limbaugh is not so much one of objective, but rather one of style. So McCain must be and is, by Rush pronouncement, a RINO, Republican in Name Only.

Lately Rush has been giving Hillary a rest and has been savaging McCain almost full time. Rush also criticizes Mike Huckabee, and praises Rudy Giuliani (who on social issues is considered more liberal than McCain) and Romney. In almost the same breath Rush denies he is endorsing any candidate. Rush then comments on the field of Republican candidates by saying he may not vote this cycle. None of the candidates are sufficiently Reaganesque and none are sufficiently near the Rush ideal. Never mind that Reagan raised taxes and signed the first amnesty bill, a bill without the hills to climb that are contained in the McCain bill. Never mind that McCain puts the need for a border fence ahead of a path to citzenenship for illegals now here. Never mind that the illegals now here will never in fact all be deported and this reality must sooner or later be faced. The salient realities need not all be honestly grappled with from the radio talk show pulpit.

Ah yes, there is another thing very few people in Europe really believe: that the Americans will actually vote for a black man as the next president of the U.S.A. It's not that they wouldn't support him, it's just they don't believe the Americans will massively vote for him in November. Most people believe there will be a Republican president again (probably Mitt Romney) and that the rift between Europe and the U.S. will persist. And many don't really believe the democrats would do much about it either, they don't know Obama enough for that.

ephemerella: I am glad to see folks speaking out about what I have been saying for months. The Media "Love Affair" with Obama could not be more evident than what has happened a minute after the polls closed in SC. Call it what you will, but I have said many times Obama has ZERO chance of being elected in 2008. There is a good way to understand how all this is so TRUE, simply by learning who does in effect control The Media. Take a little time doing the research. and I can guarantee you will be more than surprised.

About Caroline Kennedy's endorsement...very significant. This is the first time she has endorsed anyone publicly for president. Is this also a potential Kennedy family rebuke? Uncle Ted tried to advise President Clinton to cool the rhetoric about Obama and Clinton told Ted to basicly "pack sand!" Coincidence??

Sen. Barack Obama's (D-IL) February 2005 purchase of stock in AVI Biopharma and SkyTerra Communications, whose investors included donors to his 2004 Senate campaign, the Chicago Tribune reported that "two weeks after Obama purchased" stock in AVI, which was working on an avian influenza drug, "he introduced legislation to increase funding to combat the virus." The Tribune also reported that "SkyTerra received government permission to build a national wireless network on the day Obama purchased his shares.

Now that is some conflict of interest! How can anyone trust this guy to be President?

Read the full article below:

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/chi-0703090126mar09,1,6181031.story?coll=chi-newsnationworld-hed&ctrack=1&cset=true

Obama, sure, could win the residency in 2008 election. I, as majority of country votes, hope that he would win it. This country badly needs him to win.

IN a sense, Obama is the perfect anti-hillary. He is more of a novelty candidate than Hillary - People feel better about themselves stating that they are not racist as opposed to stating that they are not sexist.

It is a bizarro election.

On the other hand, one must wonder if Obama would have the momentum if Hillary was not in the race. It seems that at least a portion of Obama's support are people who say, "I want to be cool, I want to vote for the first woman, however, I just do not like Hillary" - so it is very easy for those people to get over not supporing Hillary and going for Obama.

One has to wonder if all of Obama's support would be there if there wasn't that segment of democrats who have gone through that "I want to be on a cool bandwagen however I don't like Hillary" thought process.

It just seems to me that Obama's campaign would not be what it is in a field of all white men without Hillary in there. It's almost like democratic voters feel an obligation to support Hillary as the first woman, and the only way they can get over that feeling of obligation is to go for a "cooler candidate." It is just not fashionable to go for a white male this year withing the democratic party. It's a mess of emotions. I think that is it: it is a highly emotional race, much more emotional than the Republican race.

Dave -

"...thought he ran his two presidential campaigns with a fair amount of class..."

got my attention, too. Of all adjectives to describe WJC, "classy" was not on my list. I think we would both have given him "smart" and "capable" among the favorables on that list, to be fair. "Classy"? It is to laugh.

I, who have not voted for a winner, D or R,
since 1964, never do predictions. Lyle does predictions.

But I have already seen the enthusiasm of the young translated into actual participation this time. That is different, and it reminds me of how enthusiastic I was for JFK when I was a college freshman, although I was still too young to vote, and how we children of Rs and Ds alike were wowed by him. As you say, JFK barely won. But without that youth volunteer effort and vote, he would have lost. No predictions here, just that observation - and the belief that it is good for young 'uns to be involved.

I do not care if he is black or she is white. I do not care about exit polls, I do not care about the past votes.
I only care about the future of America.
As a proud registered voter in our country and a white male, I will be changing my support at this time from Edwards to Obama.
I believe I am witnessing a third major change in America during my lifetime. I am old enough to remember the spirit in both the Camelot movement and the Civil Rights movement. I would hope we are now going into a long period of change for the better again.
Thank you to all of the people that voted in South Carolina yesterday.
Obama 08

Ten Most Corrupt Politicians 2007
http://www.judicialwatch.org/

1. Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-NY): In addition to her long and sordid ethics record, Senator Hillary Clinton took a lot of heat in 2007 - and rightly so - for blocking the release her official White House records. Many suspect these records contain a treasure trove of information related to her role in a number of serious Clinton-era scandals. Moreover, in March 2007, Judicial Watch filed an ethics complaint against Senator Clinton for filing false financial disclosure forms with the U.S. Senate (again). And Hillary's top campaign contributor, Norman Hsu, was exposed as a felon and a fugitive from justice in 2007. Hsu pleaded guilt to one count of grand theft for defrauding investors as part of a multi-million dollar Ponzi scheme.

5. Former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani (R-NY):
6. Governor Mike Huckabee (R-AR):

8. Senator Barack Obama (D-IL): A "Dishonorable Mention" last year, Senator Obama moves onto the "ten most wanted" list in 2007. In 2006, it was discovered that Obama was involved in a suspicious real estate deal with an indicted political fundraiser, Antoin "Tony" Rezko. In 2007, more reports surfaced of deeper and suspicious business and political connections It was reported that just two months after he joined the Senate, Obama purchased $50,000 worth of stock in speculative companies whose major investors were his biggest campaign contributors. One of the companies was a biotech concern that benefited from legislation Obama pushed just two weeks after the senator purchased $5,000 of the company's shares. Obama was also nabbed conducting campaign business in his Senate office, a violation of federal law.

Obama can expand his base with the media's help. I think the real story coming out of So. Car is that Obama and supporters have teamed with the conservative media to engage in Clinton-bashing. I was watching Fox News last night and watched Obama supporters and conservatives, black and white voices, alternating between laughing at the Clintons and bashing them. It was totally inappropriate and sad.

Conservatives would love to see Obama, an underqualified black man who appeal mainly to blacks and overeducated idealists, get the nomination in the Fall for the general election. There is no way Obama can win the general election, esp. if McCain is the candidate.

Edwards should terminate his candidacy and get out of the way. Edwards is now playing the role that Ralph Nader played in 2000, and has become a liability that helps the Republican agenda.

Barack won in Iowa (predominantly white) and came a close second in New Hampshire (also predominantly white). Obama does not have a problem with cross-racial appeal - the media does - which is why they keep asking whether he can do this well all over the country. People need to remember that Obama is as much a white man as he is a black man because he is biracial. Why do people insist on classifying him as "the black candidate" when his mom is white, he was raised by his white mom and white grandparents. When people look at him, they see a combination of many things and it helps his appeal and support. Please stop trying to put him in a box. He's different.

An African-American candidate got 80% of the African-American vote, in a state where Jesse Jackson had previously won the Democratic primary as well. This was as surprising as the tides or the sun rising in the morning or the moon at night. Only to the press, desperate to inject drama into this race, is this a stunning development. On February 6th, all this breathless coverage of the "new Obama momentum" will look very, very stupid.

I find it interesting that Senator Obama wants to break with the past yet tries to evoke the Kennedys. Of course, Caroline Kennedy's support helps to give that some credence.
Senator Obama is certainly an appealing figure, but I do worry about his learning curve if he was elected President. JFK had significant experience, but was not terribly effective. Of course, it did seem he was growing into the job. It took LBJ to implement the great changes of the 60's by practicing political hardball. This is a major reason the South turned Republican.
I am also not surprised that John Edwards is not doing well. His resume is in some ways thinner than Obama's. I am not sure looking out for the vulnerable means getting rich at their expense.
Finally, South Carolina matters very little in the grand scheme as a Democrat will not carry the state. This is obviously a horse race between Obama and Clinton. As with New Hampshire, I suspect the Feb. 5 vote will provide the final correcton.

Viewed from Europe this race looks strange and damaging to the democrats as a whole. Although there are leadership contests in political parties in Europe, they are never at such a giant and prolonged scale and fought with such fervor an agressiveness (looking at the hate towards Clinton or Obama in some comments here and elsewhere is really astounding) . In Europe these things would severely damage the party as a whole. Obama looks divisive from a European point of view (even though he proclaims the exact opposite, it was observed here he introduced race in the discussion), Clinton looks capable as a politician but has the disadvantage of being the wife of a former president, something that would not work out well at all in Europe. She should tell Bill at least to stay at home and hose the garden (or wahetever). In the long run it would be much better for the Democrats to have ONLY ONE BIG LEADERSHIP ELECTION at which all the democrat voters (and not from any other parties or political afiliations) vote for a candidate AT THE SAME DAY, after a six or eight weeks (or longer) of campaigning. It would leave out the messy infighting, and present a more coherent party. The only ones gaining from this in the long run (November), are the republicans.

Bubba likening Obama' win with Jesse Jackson's win. Now anyone with half a brain cannot deny he's playing the race card. I guess he believe's he can sweet talk them back into Hillary's side after she gets the nomination by playing to racial bigotry. Not so sure about that. At the rate this is going, the democratic nomination will be quite worthless.

I think this media harping on race is an ugly prejudicial way for them to keep reminding the American public that Obama is a black man. Given his background, I consider him a white man, too, not that I give a fig about such things when it comes to qualifications, especially given the abyss the current occupant of the White House, a white man in case you haven't noticed, has driven us to the edge of. As I recall, Obama won Iowa and its the Republican party that is packed with racists. It's not like that base is going to switch over and vote for Hillary who in their enlightenment, they view as the devil. I'm white, I'm a woman. Thank you South Carolina. Go Obama.

In South Carolina, Obama and the Clintons played out a 21st century version of "Jack and the Beanstalk." Guess who was in the part of the clumsy giant, Bumbledore?

http://ajliebling.blogspot.com/2008/01/barack-and-beanstalk.html

as expected obama won SC. after injecting race in to the campaign,
black pride rose. that's great. but to fuel his win by promoting race conflict isn't.

so much for obama's claim for change. this only proves he will do anything to win.

but america is not a black majority country. the rest of america sees what he's doing. we won't stand for it.

we will nominate hillary clinton for president.

Congratulations to Obama for a great win. If I read the exit polls correctly, it was the black vote that carried him to the large margin, if not the win itself. Otherwise, the vote seems to be split. This race is becomming more and more about race at the days go on, which is rather unfortunate. Fortunately for R's, it has shown the country that the D's are not as, um, "enlightened" as they claim to be. What really struck me when I read Caroline Kennedy's words are that if R's are looking for the next Reagan, the D's are looking for the next JFK. Can't either party run on their own in the present? The other thing to remember is that JFK, despite being annointed leader of a new generation and incredibly inspirational (and all the rest of the revisionist history clouded by his assassination and the liberal media), beat Nixon by only a whisker.

If it were HAROLD FORD JR i would vote for him but Barack Hussein Obama is equal to a spoiled rich white man.
He wouldnt give most people the time of day if he didnt need their votes.

He is arrogant and whiney.

ANYONE BUT OBAMA, i dont care if i have to change my party and rally all over Pittsburgh, He is all talk, and promising anything to get elected.
I cant wait to see what the Republicans dig up on him, and they will..I will enjoy it with a smile

Cillizza- The exit Poll measure of the Bill Effect was ambiguous? God you young writers must just be terrified of the Clinton's cutting your stones off. What BULL. Did you read what you wrote??
Obama takes the vote 48 to 37 in voters who identify Bill as a factor in their decision. The message is clear. Dems have had it with Narcissistic Personality Disordered / Sex Addicted Bill AND His Calculating, Race Baiting Power and Control Freak Wife. If Party Nominates her , the GOP will win YET AGAIN.

Why the Party Hacks don't get it and cut them loose is beyond me. Jesus, they keep running these Hack-centric campaigns. They lost two times in a row against an AWOL DUI Low Grade Moron in BUSH. There will be more votes and campaign cash for the Incumbancy with a bigger more mobilized Party under Obama. Hillary and Bill's opportunist support will move on once the Clinton Bubble is Burst, which is the BIG Secret the Clinton's don't want the Press to cover. As Seasoned Pols, The Clintons know GD well how mercurial support is once weakness is seen for what it is. The race baiting and Shrill Bill Whoring shows how Freaked they really are. They probably calculated Obama's campaign as a typical debutante candidacy. The Iowa Margins and Demographics clealy changed that with a real run for the Roses now. SC has confirmed it.

If the Democratic Party knows whats good for them, they'll DUMP the Clintons. The Problem is with the House and Senate Party Hacks particularly. They care less about a Dem in the White House or the overall Direction of the Country than they do in maintaining their own Incumbancy. They figure they'll have a good year, don't need a coat-tail effect and the Senators are certainly right about that.

Democratic Governors thogh are Fools to Back Hillary. But again, they Probably hold percs under a Dem President as Less Valuable or even realizeable given the poohole the country is in. They are more concerned with White Blowback they Perceive in their heads that might threaten their own Lily White Seats if they come out and Support Barack. Fools! And WORSE. They are acting as Brokers in Bigotry. To be fair so are the Old Toadies in the Black establishment that haven't yet taken Bill and Hill to the woodshed. Sure, some are Probably gambling on Clintons Promises of Patronage, but Christ, Bill has Probably Pledged Each Cabinet Post many times over. LIE and Lay on the BU))Sh)# Excuse is the Clinton MO. Bottom Line the Party Hacks are afraid of a wave of new voters they can't control. They really benefit from limited, predictable blocks being delivered by the same small time hacks over and over again. In doing so, and I say this cynically, something surely the Incumbancy should understand, Incumbant Fear of change and perhaps even challenge is a mistake POLITICALLY. Jesus, how atrophied are their political skills that they can not deal with newbies. They are missing a Golden Opportunity to truly capture a generation Lasting Democratic Majority. God the Daleys are at least smart enough to see it.

In this regard, The Country is ahead of the majority of the Democratic Establishment AND The Fourth Estate. Get with it! And get RID of the Clintons.

nicekid - "I used to admire Bill Clinton enormously and I thought he ran his two presidential campaigns with a fair amount of class--and managed to win--but his antics this time around have been nothing short of repellent."

Let me pick myself up off the floor. If you think the Clinton's are doing ANYTHING different then they have since the early 90's, you need to see the optometrist. I will congratulate you for at least starting to recognize the methods by which Democrats have played politics for the last quarter century or so.

If you are looking at big picture, more than 80% of voters would vote for either obama or clinton in Nov. All this talk about Clinton voters not supporting Obama in general or vice versa is nonsense. As a republican, my concern would be to inability of republican candidates to expand republican base. even McC would have trouble against Obama as McC doesn't propose significant change from current administration.

Chris:

Thank you for your analysis - I have been looking at the first three states (I haven't had time to examine this theory on South Carolina) - I have notice that Obama appears to be doing better in the more conservative areas of a state, and Hillary is doing better in the more liberal. cosmospolitan areas.

This observation is counterintuitive: One would at first believe Obama to be the more liberal candidate on the issues, such as the war, and Hillary is more moderate, especially when the public considers her husband's positioning in 92, DLC background, etc.

Let me be specific - Obama appeared to do better in the small towns of New Hampshire, Hillary did better in the seacoast areas, which are easier commutes to Boston. Obama did better in the far off areas of Nevada - Hillary won the more urban areas of Clark County around Las Vegas in Nevada.

Even in Iowa - the more cosmopolitan towns - the larger towns went with Hillary and the more rutal areas went with Obama - this is even more pronounced when one extracts the college vote for Obama. Like I stated, I haven't had a chance to look at South Carolina and it may be useful to look at South Carolina broken out by race as well.

What is remarkable is that Obama is the more liberal candidate on the issues - he is appealing more on an inspirational level rather than issues level. If this theory plays through, I have no idea what is will mean for SuperTuesday - New York metropolitan area will go for Hillary as well as California - however Obama may show strength in more moderate areas.

So to get up and say Hillary is leading in New York and California may be misleading.

I really do not know what to make of any of these elections results. On one level, it appears the voters keep on going against whoever appears to have the momentum. And there seems to be a "floating 10%" which shows up out of nowhere, is not showing up in the polling even one day ahead - and ends up completely on one candidate or the other, it is not split. When Hillary is looking strong, Iowa goes for Obama - then when Obama is strong in New Hampshire, a mysteriously 10% goes for Hillary - then when the Culinary Workers go for Obama, Hillary pulls it out in Nevada - then yesterday Obama's polls go from 38% to 55% in South Carolina out of nowhere.

It seems like the voters want to break momentum - when it appears they are settling in a choice, the Democrats break the other way and slow the momentum. Maybe after all is said and done, voters like the novelty aspect of these candidates, however when it appears that one or the other will win the nomination, the voters start to wonder. The democratic campaign is unique this year, it is going beyond demographics, beyond the issue, it is operating on a perception level which I guess has always been part of campaigning, however this year is very different.

benkalinsky: You are rite on in your analysis. JPRS: My numbers are the TRUE numbers as I have shown and explained all along. The Media and their "Love Affair" with Obama has been ongoing for months, now when you look at the numbers being reported by The Media, they are almost identical as to what I have been Posting for months. I like to kid you guys about the "Lyle"Genius"Pink" label someone gave me awhile back, I like the flattering aspect, and if you are honest with yourself, I have been astonishingly accurate.

Judge,

Maybe the people aren't buying the oldy but goody 90's Ancien Regime restoration tune. You know, the "First Black President" mumbo jumbo "not racist" but really racist subliminal messages n'all.

Bubba, go back to your Harlem office and keep blowing hot air there. The Billary dynamic duo spectacle is atrocious!

Looks like WJC was "no help" to HRC; in fact, it looks like his remarks did quite the opposite.

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2008/01/26/exit-polls-bill-clintons-effect/#comments

Expect Bill to go back to being the QUIET elder statesman he once was, busily polishing his legacy.

McCain is not a problem. He is just a member of keating five, sleeps around with his wh*** (now his wife),and wants to stay in Iraq to spend few trillion of our money for the muslims :-)

After Hillary and Obama duke it out, they have to come together and we will win

Anyone interested in how either the Obama-McCain or the Obama-Clinton matchup is polling ought to look at
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/national.html

Certainly there's no clear winner in either contest.

Obama voters were 80% black.

Why women can not vote for Women?

White men have won because there were no credible white women.

Also, people simply don't consider him ready for Presideny, even in SC:

http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/primaries/results/epolls/index.html#SCDEM

Obama overall vote: 54%
Obama as C-in-C / Beating Republican: 46/48
Clinton overall vote: 27%
Clinton as C-in-C/ Beating Republican: 35/36

Hillary Clinton said she is now focusing on Florida. Huh?? I thought Florida is being penalized for moving their primary date and does not count and all Dem candidates pledged not to campaign in Florida? Is she scheming again for a cheap victory like in Michigan?

Edward supporter are "core democrats". They are liberal whites, and lower income whites.

Edward's white supporters will stay with Democrat.

People are getting emotional. A Democrat will not vote for a Republican. A few of them may be green nut, but they did not vote for Gore either.

Independent will vote on pocket book issue and no one is better than Clintons at that. He had 66% popularity and still does because of real results.

Edward supporter are "core democrats". They are liberal whites, and lower income whites.

Edward's white supporters will stay with Democrat.

People are getting emotional. A Democrat will not vote for a Republican. A few of them may be green nut, but they did not vote for Gore either.

Independent will vote on pocket book issue and no one is better than Clintons at that. He had 66% popularity and still does because of real results.

The reason Obama white vote in SC is low is due to white women voters who overwhelmingly voted for Hillary presumably simply because she is a woman. I expect white women in other states will be more discerning in their choice.

Re: Edwards support and where they'd flock if he dropped out.

I suspect that a fair amount of his support comes from the fact that he's the only white male option for voters in the Dem primaries.

Take him out and I wonder how many of these people drift to the (very white, very male) GOP nominee....

White voters are the mystery and ultimate outcome is unpredictable. But there is an interesting statistics from last night:

http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/primaries/results/epolls/index.html#SCDEM

Obama overall vote: 54%
Obama as C-in-C / Beating Republican: 46/48
Clinton overall vote: 27%
Clinton as C-in-C/ Beating Republican: 35/36

Therefore, a significant part of the voter in SC = (54-47)+(36-27)= 16% last night thought Obama was not the right person, but they voted for him for other reason. I know you are not an opinion person, but it does allow opportunity to try a hypothesis. RCP average showed Obama winning by 12%, but he ended up with 27% margin. Probably these "white" voters knew the right candidate, but did not like the tone or at least what the media projected or Hillary simply not spending time in SC ticked them. If this chunk is white, it will be devastating for Obama and Clintons have succeded in making him the "black candidate".

Living in South Florida, the amount of importance that you attribute to Obama's win in South Carolina is ludricrous. A cursory examination of the demographics of the exit polls showed that blacks constituted an overlarge portion of the electorate and that Obama used his immense support from this voting bloc (over 80%) to effectively win South Carolina. If this is not an indication of racial voting, then I cannot be sure what is. I do not know about other states but here in Florida, Barack Hussein Obama's win is attributed entirely to his sweep of the black population that voted along racial lines, not on who would make the best president. I was also surprised at the plethora of commentators here and at other liberal blog sites who profess Obama's South Carolina win as a harbinger of good fortune for him in the south in both the primary and the nomination. In the first place, Obama has a lead in only one super tuesday state, that being racially polarized Georgia. However, in most of the other southern states Democrats are of a more conservative nature and would not be appeased with the thought of an inexperienced, overhyped black man representing them in the white house. Obama will also find it impossible to win in many of the delegate rich Feb. 5th states where voters are more concerned about substance than for voting for a "black brother." To refute the claims of those who mantain that Obama would be the party's strongest general election candidate in the south and the U.S at large, no Democrat has won a majority of votes in any southern state since Jimmy Carter ascended to the presidency, perhaps because all of the Dem nominees, like Obama, have lacked substance and foreign policy credentials (even Bill Clinton) and in effect turned themselves off to a significant portio of the electorate. Polls have consistently shown that HRC runs best in the south and the U.S. at large, winning or tying kentucky, Tennessee, Florida, Virginia, Missouri, and Arkansas and mantaining most of the Kerry states. The Dem's most difficult Republican would be McCain, who Obama would lose to in a landslide because of a dearth of experience. I must say, if it came down to Obama vs. McCain, I would without a doubt vote for McCain, not, as you liberal posters suggest, because I am racist, but because I do not beleive that Obama could lead our country through the times of trouble that lie ahead.

It is amazing the flippant name calling that goes on against Hillary versus the Hero worship that is said about Obama. It is amazing how Clinton supporters are labeled as ignorant and racist but still are "expected" to rally behind Obama if he wins the nomination. It is also ironic that the anti-establishment candidate is protected by the democratic establishment (HRC's people were told to be careful how they went after BO). Race (and sex) are STILL major factors of American life and to point them out is dealing with reality.

Obama's win is important. Ironically I think it is important because he was able to win the African American vote. Within the Black community there was a question of whether he was "Black enough". This is why many Blacks were NOT breaking for him early. Ironically when race was injected into the race (in my opinion by both BO and HRC) it helped African Americans rally around Obama. This will help him in other states were his credibility was still being questioned. Obama does have support of many educated Whites and that is a good thing, but he does poorly with the Walmart crowd. He also has problems with Latinos but this may be regional because race relations among African Americans and Latinos appear to differ on the West coast versus the East coast (more trouble out west).

Finally, I think it is important that HRC and BO are having a true contest with some body blows. It will make them emerge more ready for the election. This is especially true for Obama. By the way he needs to address that assumption that he is Muslim (more than just once). I know he is a Christian, but it still surprises me how many people believe that he is a Muslim. Yes, I also know that it should not matter but...

"Most of you are forgetting a black by the name of Jesse Jackson, and his wins in SC in 84 & 88. With the support of Repubs voting for Obama in the 10 to 15% range in an effort to stop Hillary, these final results were not in the least surprising. Figure in a MOE of + or - 4% and my prediction of O 44, C 31, E 25, I am about as perfect as can be, as usual."
Posted by: lylepink | January 27, 2008 12:45 AM

Lyle,

You sure are starting to sound a lot like the patronizing Billarys. Will the "ghetto black" race baiting really work?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qqd2dfjl2pw

Obama could win Super Tuesday if Bill Clinton doesn't STFU.

He and Hillary between them have managed to alienate one of the Democrats' most important core constituencies--African Americans (although Democrats tend to remember the imporance of this group only at election time)--who were firmly behind them when their sorry, nasty campaign started.

They've also managed to alienate me--a 57 year old white female, supposedly one of Billary's hard-core constituency. I used to admire Bill Clinton enormously and I thought he ran his two presidential campaigns with a fair amount of class--and managed to win--but his antics this time around have been nothing short of repellent.

I'm not sure that Obama has what it takes to clean up the huge mess that the Bush administration leaves behind, but I'm damned sure the Clintons don't.

Seven years of divisive nastiness have been more than enough for me. Given a choice between the Clintons' campaign style, reminiscent as it is of Karl Rove, and Obama's, I'm voting for Obama--even though I have reservations.

lylepink, I don't know where your getting your information from (just making it up is my guess -- please feel free to provide some hard numbers if you have 'em).

The numbers tell the story. Minimal GOP support in South Carolina -- most cross-overs for Edwards. The independent support is real enough for Obama and it has played out along similar lines in every other state thus far. 40 to 26% Obama to Clinton sounds consistent with what I'm seeing and hearing elsewhere.

macalnic: The key word in your Post is "IF" about Obama. IMHO, there is no way in the world he wins Super Tuesday. I don't see Edwards even winning one state, and he is the one who should drop out. A discussion has been going on among a lot of us Hillary supporters as to what Edwards wants or is trying to prove by staying in the race. You can count on Obama doing well in the South especially since the Repubs are supporting him in that region.

As was the case in Iowa, New Hampshire, and South Carolina, what this really seems to demonstrate is the overriding importance of a great ground game. The Clinton advantage showed in New Hampshire -- in Iowa and South Carolina Obama benefited. Nevada I still attribute in part to an assist from Rory Reed -- although the Obama organization tilted the advantage 20% in Obama's direction in the rural, northern part of the state.

Clinton obviously will have some advantages in NY -- and I would presume Obama stacks up pretty well in Illinois. But how does the ground game stack up in other Feb. 5th states? Who has the organizational infrastructure in place in advance of Feb. 5th? How substantial is the organization (e.g. number of offices)? And how long has the organizational structure been in place?

An open question, but I'd be curious to hear what folks might have to say. (Btw, great win Obama!).

@macalnic: No one is going to win Super Tuesday. One candidate will probably win a few more delegates that day than the other, but neither candidate is going to win all of the races.

We quite possibly could be headed toward the convention and though you can't tell it from the media, but if take into consideration the exit polls from South Carolina, roughly 80% of those who voted today would vote for the other candidate in November, if they're the Democratic nominee.

There's no gettin' away from it Hillary gang -- she got scalded in an important state, and came across as the small time character she is afterwards. She may come back to make things close in the next few rounds, but the damage is done...people have seen her true colors...just horrid character.

The interesting issue to me is if Obama wins Super Tuesday, do Hillary supporters hang on out of spite, or do they throw their support to Edwards? If she can't win, does she take her ball and go home, or does she act like a democrat 'team player', and support one of the other two?

With apologies to the fired-up Obama people, and leaving your passion aside, since Jesse Jackson, a niche African American candidate, DID win in S. Carolina, the large victory by Obama IS much less impressive. You can count on the press (which n