Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity

Further Thoughts On S.C. and What Lies Ahead

Barack Obama's landslide win in South Carolina was apparent early on tonight, leaving The Fix ample time to tiptoe through the exit polls in an attempt to dissect just what happened in the Palmetto State.

Barack and Michelle Obama
Barack Obama waves to the crowd as he takes the stage with his wife Michelle during a South Carolina primary victory party in Columbia. (AP)

This first set of thoughts is -- of course -- not comprehensive, so please use the comments below to add anything important I may have missed.

* The focus of the coverage is likely to be on Obama's 80+ percent showing among black voters. But it's worth noting that not only did he win one in every four white voters, according to exit polls, but he ran almost dead even with Hillary Clinton among white males (29 percent for Clinton, 27 percent for Obama). Depending on what John Edwards decides to do, that result could have major implications heading into Feb. 5. If Edwards drops out -- still an unlikely prospect -- before Super Tuesday, these numbers suggest Obama could well be competitive among white men with Clinton, a potentially powerful broadening of his coalition.

* Voters' concerns about domestic issues -- health care and the economy -- have surged over the last three weeks. In Iowa's Jan. 3 caucuses, just 35 percent of Democratic voters named the economy as the most important issue in the election, the same percentage who chose the war in Iraq. Five days later in New Hampshire, 39 percent of voters chose the economy as the key issue while 30 percent named the war. In the Nevada Democratic caucuses, fully half of those who participated said the economy was their No. 1 issue while just 23 percent chose health care and 22 percent the war in Iraq. Today in South Carolina, 53 percent chose the economy as compared to 26 percent who said health care and 18 percent who named the war. Although it was not apparent in today's vote, those trend lines would seem to work in Clinton's favor. She is well versed and comfortable talking about both issues, but when it comes to the war in Iraq she still has trouble explaining her 2002 vote to authorize it to the decidedly anti-war base of the party.

* Women, again, made up a strong majority of the Democratic electorate -- 61 percent, according to today's exit polls. But unlike in New Hampshire and Nevada, it was Obama, not Clinton, claiming the double-digit win among women. Overall, Obama won women 53 percent to 30 percent even though a racial divide was clear -- Obama won black women 79 percent to 19 percent over Clinton while the New York senator won non-black females 43 percent to 23 percent.

* Obama's dominance of the black vote in South Carolina is a remarkable accomplishment. But looking ahead to the Super Tuesday states, black voters will not be as dominant. Of the ten Feb. 5 states in which exit polling was conducted in the 2004 Democratic presidential race, only one -- Georgia -- has a similar percentage of black voters (47 percent). In 2004, 23 percent of the Tennessee Democratic electorate and 20 percent of the New York electorate was black. Obama will need to make gains among white voters to win as convincingly a week from Tuesday.

* As Obama was taking the stage to deliver his victory speech, his campaign was blasting around the text of an endorsement of their candidate by Caroline Kennedy, the daughter for the late President John F. Kennedy. It was a nice confluence of developments for Obama -- an affirmation of the movement capacity of his campaign. Since JFK's 1963 assassination -- and RFK's five years later -- the Democratic Party has been looking for the second (or third) coming of that sort of inspirational leader. Caroline Kennedy's endorsement should help Obama make that connection -- either explicitly or implicitly.

* Change continues to be the governing principle of the Democratic primaries. Fifty-three percent of South Carolina voters cited change as the top attribute in picking a candidate -- remarkably consistent with the numbers supporting change in Iowa (52 percent), New Hampshire (54 percent) and Nevada (50 percent). That trend line is very good news for Obama. Among those voters who cited change as the key element in picking their candidate in South Carolina, Obama beat Clinton 75 percent to 15 percent.

* The final question of the exit poll sought to measure the "Bill effect" ("In your vote in today's presidential primary, how would you rate the importance of Bill Clinton?") But because of its ambiguous wording, the question doesn't provide the sort of clarity we had hoped for. Nearly six-in-ten voters said Bill Clinton was either a "very" or "somewhat" important factor in their vote and, among that group, Obama won 48 percent to 37 percent. Among the 40 percent of voters who said Bill Clinton was not an important factor or not at all a factor, Obama lapped the field -- taking 62 percent to 25 percent for Edwards and 13 percent for Hillary Clinton.

Note: Please upgrade your Flash plug-in to view our enhanced content.

By Chris Cillizza  |  January 26, 2008; 9:54 PM ET
Categories:  Eye on 2008  
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   Del.icio.us   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: Florida Gov. Crist Endorses McCain
Next: Winners and Losers: S.C. Democrats Edition

Comments

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.

Posted by: sutensa | January 28, 2008 8:27 AM | Report abuse

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.


Posted by: mike-straight | January 28, 2008 4:17 AM | Report abuse

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).

Posted by: critter69 | January 28, 2008 3:09 AM | Report abuse

"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!

Posted by: Casey6 | January 28, 2008 12:41 AM | Report abuse

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.

Posted by: fmlyle | January 28, 2008 12:27 AM | Report abuse

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!!!!!

Posted by: oren1956 | January 28, 2008 12:10 AM | Report abuse

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.

Posted by: nathanhearn | January 27, 2008 10:26 PM | Report abuse

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.

Posted by: elayman | January 27, 2008 8:12 PM | Report abuse

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...

Posted by: dave | January 27, 2008 6:53 PM | Report abuse

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.

Posted by: zbob99 | January 27, 2008 4:15 PM | Report abuse

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.

Posted by: Wander_SF | January 27, 2008 3:48 PM | Report abuse

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.

Posted by: davestickler | January 27, 2008 3:14 PM | Report abuse

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.

Posted by: Nevadaandy | January 27, 2008 2:41 PM | Report abuse

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

Posted by: Nevadaandy | January 27, 2008 2:38 PM | Report abuse

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.

Posted by: optimyst | January 27, 2008 2:32 PM | Report abuse

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.

Posted by: seattle_wa | January 27, 2008 2:21 PM | Report abuse

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?

Posted by: dhunter | January 27, 2008 1:50 PM | Report abuse

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

Posted by: anthonyhillary08 | January 27, 2008 1:50 PM | Report abuse

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

Posted by: mark_in_austin | January 27, 2008 1:34 PM | Report abuse

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.

Posted by: soonipi6 | January 27, 2008 1:28 PM | Report abuse

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.

Posted by: malis | January 27, 2008 1:23 PM | Report abuse

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

Posted by: jttx | January 27, 2008 1:21 PM | Report abuse

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

Posted by: jttx | January 27, 2008 1:21 PM | Report abuse

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.

Posted by: cspengler | January 27, 2008 1:17 PM | Report abuse

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.

Posted by: cspengler | January 27, 2008 1:17 PM | Report abuse

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.

Posted by: mark_in_austin | January 27, 2008 1:08 PM | Report abuse

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???

Posted by: svreader | January 27, 2008 1:07 PM | Report abuse

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."

Posted by: soonipi6 | January 27, 2008 1:03 PM | Report abuse

"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.

Posted by: bsimon | January 27, 2008 12:47 PM | Report abuse

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.

Posted by: B2O2 | January 27, 2008 12:43 PM | Report abuse

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

Posted by: nfahringer | January 27, 2008 12:43 PM | Report abuse

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.

Posted by: B2O2 | January 27, 2008 12:38 PM | Report abuse

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.

Posted by: rodhug | January 27, 2008 12:34 PM | Report abuse

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.

Posted by: Miata7 | January 27, 2008 12:32 PM | Report abuse

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.

Posted by: optimyst | January 27, 2008 12:19 PM | Report abuse

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

Posted by: zbob99 | January 27, 2008 12:17 PM | Report abuse

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."

Posted by: jims1 | January 27, 2008 12:13 PM | Report abuse

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.

Posted by: jimd52 | January 27, 2008 12:08 PM | Report abuse

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.

Posted by: jac13 | January 27, 2008 12:07 PM | Report abuse

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

Posted by: daseaton | January 27, 2008 12:04 PM | Report abuse

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.

Posted by: dave | January 27, 2008 11:57 AM | Report abuse

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 | Report abuse

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.

Posted by: jimd52 | January 27, 2008 11:54 AM | Report abuse

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.

Posted by: jimd52 | January 27, 2008 11:49 AM | Report abuse

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.

Posted by: Spring_Rain | January 27, 2008 11:44 AM | Report abuse

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.

Posted by: rodhug | January 27, 2008 11:44 AM | Report abuse

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!!).

Posted by: Lilly1 | January 27, 2008 11:42 AM | Report abuse

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.

Posted by: dave | January 27, 2008 11:37 AM | Report abuse

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.

Posted by: mark_in_austin | January 27, 2008 11:36 AM | Report abuse

~

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.

~

Posted by: DickeyFuller | January 27, 2008 11:36 AM | Report abuse

"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.

Posted by: jimd52 | January 27, 2008 11:36 AM | Report abuse

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

Posted by: jennifera_thompson | January 27, 2008 11:32 AM | Report abuse

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!

Posted by: mark_in_austin | January 27, 2008 11:32 AM | Report abuse

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.

Posted by: jimd52 | January 27, 2008 11:30 AM | Report abuse

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"

Posted by: svreader | January 27, 2008 11:28 AM | Report abuse

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.

Posted by: rodhug | January 27, 2008 11:23 AM | Report abuse

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.

Posted by: mark_in_austin | January 27, 2008 11:21 AM | Report abuse

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.

Posted by: Nevadaandy | January 27, 2008 11:17 AM | Report abuse

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

Posted by: FritzieGr | January 27, 2008 11:12 AM | Report abuse

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.

Posted by: dave | January 27, 2008 11:11 AM | Report abuse

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!!!

Posted by: svreader | January 27, 2008 11:08 AM | Report abuse

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!

Posted by: Lbrown | January 27, 2008 11:03 AM | Report abuse

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.

Posted by: supremalex | January 27, 2008 11:00 AM | Report abuse

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

Posted by: newagent99 | January 27, 2008 10:58 AM | Report abuse

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?

Posted by: jwallace | January 27, 2008 10:54 AM | Report abuse

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.

Posted by: rodhug | January 27, 2008 10:53 AM | Report abuse

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.

Posted by: mike-straight | January 27, 2008 10:48 AM | Report abuse

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.

Posted by: lylepink | January 27, 2008 10:48 AM | Report abuse

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??

Posted by: johnklenert | January 27, 2008 10:48 AM | Report abuse

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

Posted by: Troglodyte | January 27, 2008 10:29 AM | Report abuse

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.

Posted by: aepelbaum | January 27, 2008 10:09 AM | Report abuse

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.


Posted by: Miata7 | January 27, 2008 10:05 AM | Report abuse

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.

Posted by: mark_in_austin | January 27, 2008 9:56 AM | Report abuse

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

Posted by: musselmanm321 | January 27, 2008 9:56 AM | Report abuse

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.

Posted by: washpost3 | January 27, 2008 9:45 AM | Report abuse

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.

Posted by: ephemerella | January 27, 2008 9:39 AM | Report abuse

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.

Posted by: missing_nawlins | January 27, 2008 9:35 AM | Report abuse

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.

Posted by: dyinglikeflies | January 27, 2008 9:26 AM | Report abuse

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.

Posted by: GTILLEY | January 27, 2008 9:26 AM | Report abuse

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.

Posted by: mike-straight | January 27, 2008 9:23 AM | Report abuse

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.

Posted by: vbhoomes | January 27, 2008 9:22 AM | Report abuse

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.

Posted by: SarahBB | January 27, 2008 9:09 AM | Report abuse

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

Posted by: connectdots | January 27, 2008 9:05 AM | Report abuse

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.

Posted by: mikel1 | January 27, 2008 8:55 AM | Report abuse

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.

Posted by: dave | January 27, 2008 8:47 AM | Report abuse

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

Posted by: fballfn | January 27, 2008 8:46 AM | Report abuse

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.

Posted by: fugeddabowdid | January 27, 2008 8:39 AM | Report abuse

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.

Posted by: dave | January 27, 2008 8:31 AM | Report abuse

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.

Posted by: skarfam | January 27, 2008 8:22 AM | Report abuse

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.


Posted by: Miata7 | January 27, 2008 8:22 AM | Report abuse

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.

Posted by: lylepink | January 27, 2008 8:11 AM | Report abuse

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!

Posted by: rfpiktor | January 27, 2008 8:11 AM | Report abuse

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.

Posted by: judgeccrater | January 27, 2008 7:47 AM | Report abuse

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

Posted by: SeedofChange | January 27, 2008 7:34 AM | Report abuse

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.

Posted by: judgeccrater | January 27, 2008 7:29 AM | Report abuse

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

Posted by: SeedofChange | January 27, 2008 7:29 AM | Report abuse

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?

Posted by: zbob99 | January 27, 2008 7:27 AM | Report abuse

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.

Posted by: SeedofChange | January 27, 2008 7:25 AM | Report abuse

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.

Posted by: SeedofChange | January 27, 2008 7:25 AM | Report abuse

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.

Posted by: zbob99 | January 27, 2008 7:21 AM | Report abuse

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....

Posted by: jtamarkin | January 27, 2008 7:18 AM | Report abuse

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".

Posted by: SeedofChange | January 27, 2008 7:12 AM | Report abuse

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.

Posted by: benkalinsky | January 27, 2008 7:11 AM | Report abuse

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...

Posted by: mcfield | January 27, 2008 6:58 AM | Report abuse

"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

Posted by: rfpiktor | January 27, 2008 6:49 AM | Report abuse

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.

Posted by: nicekid | January 27, 2008 6:41 AM | Report abuse

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.

Posted by: JPRS | January 27, 2008 6:28 AM | Report abuse

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.

Posted by: lylepink | January 27, 2008 5:58 AM | Report abuse

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!).

Posted by: JPRS | January 27, 2008 5:55 AM | Report abuse

@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.

Posted by: rawrenn | January 27, 2008 5:43 AM | Report abuse

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?

Posted by: macalnic | January 27, 2008 5:33 AM | Report abuse

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 needs a narrative to sell stories) to give this a few days of spin, but in real life it means nothing in states with a different demographic. If I am wrong, perhaps we can ask "President Jesse Jackson" directly.

Posted by: dyinglikeflies | January 27, 2008 5:06 AM | Report abuse

The response was reaction.

Posted by: legan00 | January 27, 2008 4:59 AM | Report abuse

obama in in SC wasnt a surprise. black pride! this after tactically injecting race in the campaign. how old style politics is that? so much for change blah blah.

Posted by: mikel1 | January 27, 2008 4:42 AM | Report abuse

Obama: I've said it for several weeks now, but Obama will win a number of states & delegates.
Remember Georgia, Miss. etc..Cali.?


Norman Thomas '08

Posted by: legan00 | January 27, 2008 4:42 AM | Report abuse

Obama: I've said it for several weeks now, but Obama will win a number of states & delegates.
Remember Georgia, Miss. etc..Cali.?


Norman Thomas '08

Posted by: legan00 | January 27, 2008 4:41 AM | Report abuse

Obama: I'e said it for several weeks now, but Obama will win a number of states & delegates.
Remember Georgia, Miss. etc..Cali.?


Norman Thomas '08

Posted by: legan00 | January 27, 2008 4:41 AM | Report abuse

Obama: I'e said it for several weeks now, but Obama will win a number of states & delegates.
Remember Georgia, Miss. etc..Cali.?


Norman Thomas '08

Posted by: legan00 | January 27, 2008 4:41 AM | Report abuse

Obama: I've said it for several weeks now, but Obama will win a number of states & delegates.
Remember Georgia, Miss. etc..Cali.?


Norman Thomas '08

Posted by: legan00 | January 27, 2008 4:41 AM | Report abuse

Obama: I'e said it for several weeks now, but Obama will win a number of states & delegates.
Remember Georgia, Miss. etc..Cali.?


Norman Thomas '08

Posted by: legan00 | January 27, 2008 4:39 AM | Report abuse

as expected obama won SC because of black pride. this after he tactically injeced race inthe campaign.he still didn't win wide margin jesse jackson did.

but again, america is not black majority country and clinton enjoys wide support from other minoriy groups, not counting the white vote.

it's despicable that he accused clinton of racial prejudice. the nation knows better and will prove it by nominating clinton and voting her president.

Posted by: mikel1 | January 27, 2008 4:34 AM | Report abuse

WELCOME TO THE WORLD OF SLICK OBAMA. HALF OF HIS RELATIVES FROM HIS FATHER SIDE WOULD BE ON TV NEWS HERE WHEN HE BECOME PRESIDENT. NOW THAT IS YOUR TAKE. YOU VOTED FOR IT AND NOW YOU GOT IT. I DO NOT TRUST A MUSLIM NAME VOTE HILLARY

Posted by: anthonyhillary08 | January 27, 2008 4:31 AM | Report abuse

as expected obama won SC because of black pride. this after he tactically injeced race inthe campaign.he still didn't win wide margin jesse jackson did.

but again, america is not black majority country and clinton enjoys wide support from other minoriy groups, not counting the white vote.

it's despicable that he accused clinton of racial prejudice. the nation knows better and will prove it by nominating clinton and voting her president.

Posted by: mikel1 | January 27, 2008 4:27 AM | Report abuse

as expected obama won SC because of black pride. this after he tactically injeced race inthe campaign.he still didn't win wide margin jesse jackson did.

but again, america is not black majority country and clinton enjoys wide support from other minoriy groups, not counting the white vote.

it's despicable that he accused clinton of racial prejudice. the nation knows better and will prove it by nominating clinton and voting her president.

Posted by: mikel1 | January 27, 2008 4:27 AM | Report abuse

as expected obama won SC because of black pride. this after he tactically injeced race inthe campaign.he still didn't win wide margin jesse jackson did.

but again, america is not black majority country and clinton enjoys wide support from other minoriy groups, not counting the white vote.

it's despicable that he accused clinton of racial prejudice. the nation nows better and will prove it by nominating clinton and voting her president.

Posted by: mikel1 | January 27, 2008 4:25 AM | Report abuse

Yes, Obama is a good choice, however check out Ron Paul, he is really impressive and not from the "same mold" like most of the rest.

I watch him on this RSS feed Watch:

http://feeds.feedburner.com/ron_paul

Posted by: davidmwe | January 27, 2008 4:21 AM | Report abuse

"...in politics the choice is not between what is good vs what is evil but rather between what is preferable and what is detestable." Rove-Bush-Cheney-neocons are what is detestible; Obama is preferable. He is the only candidate who promises real change. Let us hope he has the courage to deliver on the promise.

Posted by: danigo | January 27, 2008 4:04 AM | Report abuse

Scandals and unseen events aside, he surely _has_ as can be seen with his web stats here:

http://newsusa.myfeedportal.com/viewarticle.php?articleid=40

Posted by: davidmwe | January 27, 2008 3:32 AM | Report abuse

Zoot, that's Mrs. Rodham Sr., I think.

Posted by: ViejitaDelOeste | January 27, 2008 3:24 AM | Report abuse

Some pundits were saying Obama's share of white votes dropped compared to his mid-high 30% in Iowa, NH and Nevada. I think they miss a key factor that John Edwards being a local son in SC. Otherwise, it is possible that Obama's share of White votes could higher than 25%. Can Obama win? Yes, we can.

Posted by: ericc2 | January 27, 2008 3:22 AM | Report abuse

filmex nailed it.

Obama grows the base. Hillary shrinks it.

If Democrats want to win, the smartest thing they can do is nominate Barack Obama.

All you Billary-naysayers need to remember that John Edwards is also a candidate for BIG changes. 75% of South Carolina, including super-majorities of both whites and blacks voted for a candidate representing change. The real story in this race has nothing to do with race, and the sickening Clinton-drivel and media replay of that meme serves no one but establishment politicians and DC insiders.

Americans are excited. We know we're on the verge of something huge. United, YES WE CAN!

USA!

RACE DOESN'T MATTER!

The most diverse coalition of the PEOPLE is going to take this government back, OF THE PEOPLE, BY THE PEOPLE, and FOR THE PEOPLE!

YES, AMERICA, WE CAN!

Posted by: DouginMountVernon | January 27, 2008 3:18 AM | Report abuse

As for the Latino demographic, I think we are even starting to see some shifts there.

Here in Arizona, three months ago Hillary had a 35% led over Obama. In the new poll from last week, it's down to 10%.

This is an ongoing trend.

Clinton was up by 30 in Iowa, and ended up losing handily.

She was up by 33 in New Hampshire, before she ended up winning by 6.

She was up by 28 in Nevada four months ago, and ended up winning a narrow victory, but actually ended up with fewer delegates because Obama's votes were statewide, as opposed to concentrated in Vegas.

And in November, Clinton was up by 25% in South Carolina, and leading amongst Black voters by 15%, only to be "routed" (according to AP), by an almost 2 to 1 margin.

What Hillary needs are the primaries over YESTERDAY, because it is plain the longer people have a chance to give her a good smell, the more obvious the stench becomes.

Even in her wins, she's just held on.

The Dems only win in Nov. if they BUILD the party. What is clear about Clinton is she shrinks the party.

Posted by: filmex | January 27, 2008 3:16 AM | Report abuse

As for the Latino demographic, I think we are even starting to see some shifts there.

Here in Arizona, three months ago Hillary had a 35% led over Obama. In the new poll from last week, it's down to 10%.

This is an ongoing trend.

Clinton was up by 30 in Iowa, and ended up losing handily.

She was up by 33 in New Hampshire, before she ended up winning by 6.

She was up by 28 in Nevada four months ago, and ended up winning a narrow victory, but actually ended up with fewer delegates because Obama's votes were statewide, as opposed to concentrated in Vegas.

And in November, Clinton was up by 25% in South Carolina, and leading amongst Black voters by 15%, only to be "routed" (according to AP), by an almost 2 to 1 margin.

What Hillary needs are the primaries over YESTERDAY, because it is plain the longer people have a chance to give her a good smell, the more obvious the stench becomes.

Even in her wins, she's just held on.

The Dems only win in Nov. if they BUILD the party. What is clear about Clinton is she shrinks the party.

Posted by: filmex | January 27, 2008 3:16 AM | Report abuse

I strongly agree with pmtenf and filmex.
The real truth behind these numbers is that Hillary's candidacy leaves people cold. Bill is probably still worth a couple of extra points, but it's not nearly enough when the young turn out as they did in South Carolina.

In a state that returned GW Bush by 58-41 in 2004, Obama attracted twice as many votes as the Republican primary winner John McCain. One hundred thousand more Democrats than Republicans voted in the primaries of this deep-red state.

Not all of these new voters were created by Obama - GW Bush's disastrous presidency is enough to drive even the most lethargic citizen to the polls - but they all support Obama, that's for sure.

Obama is bad, bad news for a weakened GOP. The Clintonites' endless refrain, that Republicans secretly want to run against Obama, looks hollower than ever today. Republicans fear Obama because he opens up the prospect of big turnout, the conservative's nemesis. He could hurt them in places they thought safe. He could even turn the Southern states blue again.

Posted by: Bud0 | January 27, 2008 3:11 AM | Report abuse

Take a look at the demographic breakdown of the SC vote. Obama did worst (15%) amongst the 16% of the non-black voters 60 and over. Taking the youngest cohort (60-65)from that group, these are people who were between 20 and 30 years old by 1970, meaning that many of their formative years were spent in a virulently racist environment; older cohorts were exposed to this atmosphere over an even-longer time period. Old habits die hard. Eliminate the 60-and-over group from the non-black voter analysis, and you see a very different picture. Clearly, Obama can marshal very significant non-black support, even in a state where historically race has been a major consideration.

It's distressing to see the latent racism amongst presumably moderate-to-liberal Clinton voters. There's an unwillingness to assume that many AA voters backed Obama on his merits and not his skin color. When AA voters overwhelmingly support Obama, it's not enough to accuse them of bad political judgment, it's got to be race-driven. Yet when over-60 white women (say) in NH vote heavily for HRC, it's on the merits and her '35 years of experience', not from a desire to see the first woman president (and a white woman to boot), despite the fact that so much of her on-the-ground campaigning in IA and NH was pitched to that instinct (Chelsea and Mrs. Clinton Sr.).

It's the unspoken assumptions that trip us up and cast a little light on the dark places in our mind....

Posted by: zoot1 | January 27, 2008 2:44 AM | Report abuse

73 percent of Democrats in South Carolina voted AGAINST Hillary Clinton. That can't be good for her, no matter how you look at it.

Posted by: brhseattle | January 27, 2008 2:38 AM | Report abuse

rawrenn: I notice the states Jesse won has two things in common about what has been my position for several months, The Repubs are trying to stop Hillary from getting the Dem nomination. This makes sense when you consider anyone in the political field wants to run against the opponent they consider the weakest, and Obama fits this role. SC fits this role as well, in that over many years it has been a Repub stronghold in the GE for Prez, and it is only logical that many Repubs would support Obama and not vote for any of the Repubs in the primaries. You have only to think of the logic I use to see how my argument fits the situation as I have outlined.

Posted by: lylepink | January 27, 2008 2:15 AM | Report abuse

What to make of the size of the win (28%) and the disparity with the polls, which suggested a 10-12% win? There was much made to-do in New Hampshire when the polls got turned upside down. The same thing happened tonight, just in the opposite direction.

I am not poll-bashing. But it's clear that the assumptions which make polls possible have been turned on their ear when it comes to Obama.

Posted by: starthom | January 27, 2008 1:59 AM | Report abuse

It's not just the media that's injecting race into it:

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

Posted by: davestickler | January 27, 2008 1:55 AM | Report abuse

So, all the Obama supporters would have us believe that these results show a massive surge for their candidate. If we extrapolate these numbers to the other states, that would indicate a likelihood of his getting 30-40 percent in each of most of the next primaries... What then, Obama fans? I think this is now going to be a long slow campaign fizzle, following IA's high water mark and tonight's more-or-less repudiation of those results.

Posted by: cmv99 | January 27, 2008 1:55 AM | Report abuse

I'd really appreciate it, if so many people weren't so quick to dismiss Jesse Jackson's victories in '88. I personally knocked on doors on his behalf and he won a dozen races (AK, AL, DC, DE, GA, LA, MI, MS, PR, SC, VA, VT) and the way he's being portrayed in the blogosphere as a "black" candidate, or for it to somehow be racist to predict that Obama should be able to duplicate a lot of these results is a little bewildering.

The media are the ones who have harped on South Carolina's racial makeup. I don't believe a single story has been written since Iowa that fails to mention this fact. They're the ones that created the mini-dramas about race and politics and they are the ones who have interpreted everything through that light. Apparently this also includes mention that Jesse Jackson won South Carolina (and VA, DC, LA, plus MS) twice.

Posted by: rawrenn | January 27, 2008 1:30 AM | Report abuse

I've been scanning the net for comments on the racial aspects of tonight's primary and it looks to me that it's pretty clear that the most racist remarks are being posted by Hillary Clinton supporters.

Who was it who said just claimed so teary-eyed that she didn't want to watch the US "go backwards"?

Posted by: miraclestudies | January 27, 2008 1:19 AM | Report abuse

Bigots everywhere I look.

Posted by: alarico | January 27, 2008 12:56 AM | Report abuse

One more stat to assuage Chris' reluctance to face the fact of Obama's ability to move on and - even eyes! - electability. Obama won all but two counties in South Carolina:
http://politics.nytimes.com/election-guide/2008/results/states/SC.html

Posted by: GordonsGirl | January 27, 2008 12:55 AM | Report abuse

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 | Report abuse

vtavgjoe,
I think you are correct that narrowing the gap among Latino voters will be one of Obama's biggest challenges. However, I think the Nevada race has been mis-characterized. Obama never had a lead in the Nevada poll; the support of the Culinary Workers' Union helped him to close the gap, but Nevada is a "right to work" state, and this is 2007. Remember the Nevada debate (in November?) that was so stacked with Hillary supporters neither Edwards nor Obama could complete their points without being drowned out by boos?
California's Latino voters will be his biggest problem. The gerrymandering of the congressional districts may mean that he can still walk away with 40% of the state's delegates in a loss.

Posted by: jonathanmstevens | January 27, 2008 12:42 AM | Report abuse

Can I suggest you go home to bed and stop wild speculation. I realize you have a job and the WP pays you well, so you must think that you have to churn out stuff -- actually, you will help journalism much more with less speculation.

Even if Obama gets every black vote, do you think he can win the nomination or the presidency? Do the math.

Posted by: frederick2 | January 27, 2008 12:35 AM | Report abuse

Can I suggest you go home to bed and stop wild speculation. I realize you have a job and the WP pays you well, so you must think that you have to churn out stuff -- actually, you will help journalism much more with less speculation.

Even if Obama gets every black vote, do you think he can win the nomination or the presidency? Do the math.

Posted by: frederick2 | January 27, 2008 12:34 AM | Report abuse

As someone who is supporting Obama right now, what scares me is not the white or black voters, but latinos. Latinos are breaking by a HUGE margin towards Hillary, and a lot of the big super tuesday states (CA, NY, NJ, IL, NM, AZ) have big latino populations. Lots of people are asking if caucasians will vote for an african american candidate, but few seem to be asking the same about Latinos. Look at Nevada, where pundits were calling for an Obama win.

Posted by: vtavgjoe | January 27, 2008 12:26 AM | Report abuse

Kerry and Edwards sent Sharpton to the cleaners in SC in 04. Sharpton came last in every black majority precinct. How's that for racial voting! CC, please include the historical record, it's also part of your job. Just a sentence would be fine.

Posted by: xango | January 27, 2008 12:24 AM | Report abuse

It looks like Senator Obama found his 'voice' in South Carolina.

Yes, he did!!!

Morale of the story: The Clintons can bamboozle some of the people some of the time and all of the people some of the time -- but they can't bamboozle all of the people all of the time !

Onto Victory - YES HE WILL!

Posted by: crenza | January 27, 2008 12:22 AM | Report abuse

I my post above, I referred to the white male vote whereas the percentages I cited were for the total white vote. Obviously this doesn't change the argument.

Posted by: jonathanmstevens | January 27, 2008 12:20 AM | Report abuse

It looks like Senator Obama found his 'voice' in South Carolina.

Yes, he did!!!

Morale of the story: The Clintons can bamboozle some of the people some of the time and all of the people some of the time -- but they can't bamboozle all of the people all of the time !

Onto Victory - YES HE WILL!

Posted by: crenza | January 27, 2008 12:19 AM | Report abuse

It looks like Senator Obama found his 'voice' in South Carolina.

Yes, he did!!!

Morale of the story: The Clintons can bamboozle some of the people some of the time and all of the people some of the time -- but they can't bamboozle all of the people all of the time !

Onto Victory - YES HE WILL!

Posted by: crenza | January 27, 2008 12:19 AM | Report abuse

"75% of white people didn't vote for Obama yet you think that the white male vote is going to be split between Obama and Clinton if Edwards drops out. How in the heck does that make sense?"

Here's the way to think about it: In an exactly even split between the candidates, each would receive 33.3% of the white male vote. Obama ended up about 8.3% short of this mark which would give his take of the white vote at 75.1% of a tie. Now, before remarking that this understates his underperformance in this group, remember that he was competing against two candidates who aggressively courted this voter block in the state that started the Civil War during a campaign where the media was pounding the race drum. Another way to think of it is that he quintupled Jesse Jackson's percentage white support. Obama also received more votes than the total cast in the 2004 Dem primary. I worked that primary, and it was hard fought between Kerry, Edwards, and Sharpton.

Posted by: jonathanmstevens | January 27, 2008 12:16 AM | Report abuse

I was very disappointed to see Bill Clinton compare Obama's SC win to Jesse Jackson's. It's as if he said, "Oh, he's just the black guy, and black guys can win SC." Um, Bill, Jesse didn't win Iowa or tie (in delegates) in NH.

I like the guy, but this is making me squirm. I might hafta scrape off my "I Miss Bill" bumper sticker.

Posted by: cleonard1 | January 27, 2008 12:11 AM | Report abuse

No, black voters in SC do not vote on the basis of race. Why do I say that? Because in the 2004 SC democratic primary, Al Sharpton only got 10% of the vote. John Kerry and John Edwards wiped his shirt on the floor in the black communities. Some folks have really short memories.

Interestingly, Bill Clinton, speaking to the press after getting his clock cleaned tonight, conveniently forgot how black voters rejected Sharpton a short 4 years ago and preferred to recall Jesse Jackson's campaigns in the 80s.

Posted by: xango | January 27, 2008 12:08 AM | Report abuse

I think I've figured out why the national media wants to play along with the Clintons' spin of Senator Obama's SC run-away win:

Just going by the incredibly lame coverage of tonight's resutls, it seems pretty clear to me that the press can identify more easily with the Clintons' dirty tricks than with Obama's high level of integrity.

Shame on you, Chris, for going along with the Clintons' attempt to divide us along racial lines!

I as disappointed in reading your "analysis" tonight as I am PROUD of the voters in South Carolina.

Posted by: miraclestudies | January 27, 2008 12:05 AM | Report abuse

"Obama will need to make gains among white voters..." Did I miss something or did he not win Iowa? You sound like a reasonable, well-intentioned reporter, but making a statement like that, without noting in the same comment that Obama already won a COMPLETELY white state and polled well with whites in two others, makes it appear that you are trying to continue to paint him as the "african-american" candidate trying hoping to ultimately win white votes - just because this week he won South Carolina and not Vermont. Like he should be perceived as this generation's Jesse Jackson. This false implication comes across as subtly racist. Look, I don't even know if I'm voting for him but at least acknowledge that the guy can - and HAS - carried the white vote.

Posted by: bill2810 | January 27, 2008 12:04 AM | Report abuse

"Obama will need to make gains among white voters..." Did I miss something or did he not win Iowa? You sound like a reasonable, well-intentioned reporter, but making a statement like that, without noting in the same comment that Obama already won a COMPLETELY white state and polled well with whites in two others, makes it appear that you are trying to continue to paint him as the "african-american" candidate trying hoping to ultimately win white votes - just because this week he won South Carolina and not Vermont. Like he should be perceived as this generation's Jesse Jackson. This false implication comes across as subtly racist. Look, I don't even know if I'm voting for him but at least acknowledge that the guy can - and HAS - carried the white vote.

Posted by: bill2810 | January 27, 2008 12:04 AM | Report abuse

One interesting bit is that among tonight's voters, only 10% would be very dissatisfied, and 13% somewhat dissatisfied were Clinton to be the nominee.

Tonight was a great victory for Obama, to be certain, but given the demographics of the Feb 5th states (more white & latino), Obama will need a huge boost from South Carolina to stay close.

I don't think a storyline of his winning 80% of the black vote and 25% of the white vote will be enough, so I think Clinton is still more likely to win.

As the stat above shows, though, most democrats would be delighted to have either Obama or Clinton be the nominee. It amazes me when a minority of Obama supporters, who are supposedly embracing a 'change in tone' and 'disagreeing without being disagreeable' act as though the Clintons are evil and viciously slander her.

Karl Rove is evil. Dick Cheney is evil. Keep your perspective and the democrats may get the white house.

Posted by: skreechdog | January 26, 2008 11:56 PM | Report abuse

"Obama will need to make gains among white voters to win as convincingly a week from Tuesday."

Of course he won't have the same kind of landslide victory across the country on Tuesday. The question is if he can win convincingly at all, not replicate this blowout.

Posted by: light_bearer | January 26, 2008 11:53 PM | Report abuse

I think the problem of assessing the percentage of black voters in states like Tennessee or New York based on 2004 figures, or anywhere else, is that thousands of first time voters are registering to vote for Obama that have never been part of the process.

The figures based on 2004 simply no longer hold water.

Look to the fact that Obama received more votes tonight in South Carolina than ALL the contestants did combined in the 2004 South Carolina primary.

Think about that for a moment.

Add up all the votes cast for Wesley Clark, Howard Dean, John Edwards, John Kerry, Dennis Kucinich, Joe Lieberman and Al Sharpton, and Obama's vote total exceeds it.

THAT is a lot of new voices being heard. And that is what separates Obama from Clinton, the Great Divider.

Obama GROWS the base. Hillary shrinks it.

Posted by: filmex | January 26, 2008 11:50 PM | Report abuse

Chris (or others on this blog) please explain something to me. I'm not really an election expert. Why is John Edwards, as Chris put it, all but certain to stay in until after Feb 5th? He apparently has no chance of winning at all. He did just come in 3rd in South Carolina, his last, best hope.

I'm a non-citizen and cannot vote, but it seems to me that all he is doing is helping out Hillary Clinton by drawing support from Obama, and Hillary, due to her divisiveness (many Democrats even don't like her), is the worst possible nominee that the party could put up in the general election.

So why doesn't he drop out now?

Posted by: thechilidragon | January 26, 2008 11:46 PM | Report abuse

Exit polling data for those looking for it: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21226006/

Posted by: novamatt | January 26, 2008 11:46 PM | Report abuse

Over 108,664 more votes were cast in SC's Democratic Primary than in SC's Republican Primary. That's over 25% more votes cast in the Democratic than Republican Primaries. Obama got more votes (over 295,091) in SC than the top two finishers (McCain with 140,798 votes and Huckabee with 126,187) in the SC Republican Primary combined.

It seems new young voters and other voters who did not vote in previous elections could make SC and other Southern states competitive in November if Obama is the Democratic nominee. I doubt Clinton could win any states in the deep South.

The Republican results in SC were as follows:

McCain, John S. 140,798 33.24%
Huckabee, Mike 126,187 29.79%
Thompson, Fred 66,824 15.78%
Romney, Mitt 63,909 15.09%
Paul, Ron 15,570 3.68%
Giuliani, Rudolph 8,989 2.12%

Posted by: pmtenf | January 26, 2008 11:36 PM | Report abuse

The Illinois senator earned more than twice the vote that rival Sen. Hillary Clinton did, 55 percent to 27 percent, unofficial returns showed. Obama captured 80 percent of the African-American vote, according to exit polls.

Did African American voters in South Carolina vote along race?

http://www.youpolls.com/details.asp?pid=1640

.

Posted by: PollM | January 26, 2008 11:35 PM | Report abuse

The media obsession with race is ridiculous.

Btw- Is is too much for Hillary to publicly congratulate Obama for a win?

No class.

Posted by: cjroses | January 26, 2008 11:33 PM | Report abuse

Assuming that Cillizza is referring to the CNN exit polls above, he's retransmitting what appears to be bad data. The GOP exit poll lists four "Most Important Issues" with illegal immigration at the top. However, the Dem version of the same poll only lists three "Most Important Issues".

And, some searching will find Lou Dobbs complaining about CNN excluding illegal immigration from their Dem polls, leading me to suspect that either it was omitted from the poll entirely or the results were omitted from the list. Why only have three top issues for the Dems, but four for the Republicans?

If the MSM spent even one-quarter as much time investigating Obama's immigration positions as they spend on the only thing they understand (horserace), he'd be toast:

http://nomoreblather.com/barack-obama-and-the-immigration-marches

Posted by: LonewackoDotCom | January 26, 2008 11:29 PM | Report abuse

B202 writes
"Americans went over 2-to-1 for a candidate running *against* the Clinton machine. Um, story maybe?"

I agree. A couple random thoughts; who was won the most votes so far? I think Obama's victories have been larger than Clinton's (and losses smaller). Two, if we weight the SC vote to match US population, who wins? I haven't run the numbers, but I suspect Obama wins that too.

Posted by: bsimon | January 26, 2008 11:20 PM | Report abuse

Obama got 295,091 votes (with 1% not yet counted) in SC. This is more than the top two finishers (McCain with 140,798 votes and Huckabee with 126,187 votes) in the SC Republican Primary combined. Could Obama bring in enough new voters that he could win Southern states if he becomes the Democratic nominee?

Posted by: pmtenf | January 26, 2008 11:19 PM | Report abuse

Obama won Iowa, which is 98% white and came in second in New Hampshire, which is 99% white. Every candidate would like to expand his base, but in Obama case it has nothing to do with his skin-color.

I'll bet Edwards would give his right arm to get as many white votes as Obama has gotten!

Posted by: francislholland | January 26, 2008 11:17 PM | Report abuse

This is either really disappointing journalism or else poorly and ambiguously worded. First, there's no indication that white males who voted for John Edwards are anything like those who did not. Thus no logic to the conclusion that Clinton and Obama would evenly split their vote if Edwards drops out. For example, what if the overwhelming majority of presumably progressive Edwards-supporting white males see Obama as the more progressive (and therefore preferable) second choice? Not to mention the obvious-- the Super Tuesday states hardly mirror South Carolina. That goes for their white male democrats, too.

Further, unless the polls referred to are nationwide (which I doubt, and which is at least unclear), the far more likely explanation for the "sharply increasing interest" in the economy "over the past few weeks" is that-- wait for it-- VOTERS IN SOUTH CAROLINA AND NEVADA ARE MORE CONCERNED ABOUT THE ECONOMY THAN VOTERS IN IOWA OR NEW HAMPSHIRE. This may not be the sole reason for the disparity, but it's much more likely than a sudden and incredibly sharp nationwide jump that could be applied to Super Tuesday states.

Color me... unimpressed.

Posted by: dmbz | January 26, 2008 11:16 PM | Report abuse

"have you caucused before? Are you planning to go to one or the other?"

I have not & I am not planning to. The Dems ask that you sign a pledge to vote a straight ticket, which I am unwilling to do. I tend to vote IP, which is mired above the viability threshold (to be considered a 'major party' in MN), but below actual viability (Ventura excepted).

Posted by: bsimon | January 26, 2008 11:13 PM | Report abuse

Good observation on white males. I and nearly all those I know will vote for Obama or McCain, given choice. Match these 2 head to head, who knows what will happen! Might seem crazy, given major policy differences, but both have shown what we need desperately right now, an ability to work with those who disagree with you and forge a consensus and a belief that if you get a majority of Americans to pitch in, we can still salvage this great nation.

Posted by: merganser | January 26, 2008 11:12 PM | Report abuse

DO YOU PEOPLE AT THE POST HAVE ANY CLUE HOW BIG IT IS TO WIN A STATE BY AN OVER 2-TO-1 MARGIN??? THAT'S WHAT OBAMA DID TONIGHT. AND ALL YOU CAN TALK ABOUT IS RACE, RACE AND MORE RACE. DON'T TRIP OVER THE STORY, IT'S LAYING RIGHT THERE IN FRONT OF YOU... Sheesh.

Everyone in South Carolina who voted tonight was an American. Why can't you talk about that? Americans went over 2-to-1 for a candidate running *against* the Clinton machine. Um, story maybe?

Posted by: B2O2 | January 26, 2008 11:11 PM | Report abuse

A comment about the white vote in SC. The age breakdown is significant. Off the top of my head, 52% of whites 18-29, and only 16% of white 60 and over voted for Obama. That's progress right there. If 86% of Democratic voters said they would be satisfied with Obama as the party nominee, that means something like 65-70% of white SC Democrats.

So I think the white vote is less tribalistic than maybe what many of us had expected. Obama was certainly competitive among white voters in a three-way race, and I think that bodes well for him in upcoming states given that I think the Clinton campaign will abandon the dog whistle racialized rhetoric that WJC deployed.

Along those lines, the Obama campaign should privately thank WJC for helping turn out so many black voters and young voters. There was long a question of whether Obama was "black enough." When WJC made his coded appeals to white voters' bigotry, that made Obama "black enough." Obama may not have been before, but making his blackness a reason to vote against him for white folks was a huge mistake for Team Clinton, and one that will continue to resonate, and not just among blacks. The young, racially diverse but mostly white progressives I hang out with were absolutely freaking appalled by what happened in the last couple of weeks.

Posted by: novamatt | January 26, 2008 11:08 PM | Report abuse

Bsimon, have you caucused before? Are you planning to go to one or the other?

Posted by: mark_in_austin | January 26, 2008 11:05 PM | Report abuse

ParkerFl - I couldn't agree more. As a Michigan Dem, I'm insulted by the slimy, underhanded way in which she kept her name on the ballot in order to proclaim "victory" and now panders to Michigan voters by saying that she wants our delegates sat at the convention (which obviously is a completely self-serving act that is in true HRC fashion dressed up as something other). Combine that with the open secret here that she's encouraging her supporters to run as "undecided" delegates (that significant group of Michigan Dems who went out of their way to say they wanted more than what appeared on the ballot), and it's just another disgusting example of the dishonesty that is becoming too typical of the Clinton campaign. Some people will do anything to get elected (or at least nominated)...

Posted by: dan | January 26, 2008 11:05 PM | Report abuse

The fact that the sole surviving member of the Camelot White House has endorsed Barack Obama as the candidate who can offer hope and provide inspiration is in itself touching.

But beyond that, Obama is tapping into another key constituency of the Kennedy coalition, one especially important to Bobby Kennedy ...

Indian Country Could Back Obama on Super Tuesday

New America Media
Ketaki Gokhale
Jan 24, 2008

Editor's Note: Barack Obama is doing well with Native American voters, but - perhaps more significantly - the exciting race is having an empowering effect on Native communities across the country.

Barack Obama is big in Indian Country ...

He has ... somehow, managed to capture the imagination of Indian Country, say Native American commentators and community activists.

Whether that wave of goodwill is enough to carry him to "Super Tuesday" primary victories in the states of Alaska, New Mexico, Oklahoma, North Dakota and Arizona, remains to be seen.

"Obama represents a break from the old"something fresh and new," says Paul DeMain, managing editor of the Northern Wisconsin-based newspaper News from Indian Country. "Native people are looking at him as someone who can empathize with other people of color." ...

Over in Nebraska, Kevin Abourezk, a reporter with the Lincoln Journal Star and a prominent Native affairs blogger, agrees. "Obama is appealing to younger voters across the ethnic spectrum. He"s just exciting, and he harkens back to people like John F. Kennedy." ...

A recent column in Indian Country Today, however, argued that Obama is reaching out to Native Americans, and that he is the only candidate to have a page on his website dedicated to his Native American supporters. The site, First Americans for Obama, includes a post on a bill Obama cosponsored last year that aims to improve the Indian Health Service, a federal program that operates medical clinics and hospitals on reservations. ...

In states like Alaska, where 16 percent of the population is Native Alaskan, New Mexico, where 10.2 percent of the population is Native, and Oklahoma, where is 8.1 percent of the population is Native, the way Indian Country votes, if it votes as a bloc, could influence the Democratic Party pick for a presidential nominee.

Compounding the political strength of Indian Country is the strong Democratic streak that runs through it. ...

Posted by: Martinedwinandersen | January 26, 2008 11:04 PM | Report abuse

please don't forget the support Obama received from the youth vote. Voters ages 18-29 (I believe, might want to double check) made up nearly 50% of his voting block.

Posted by: charley.c.johnson | January 26, 2008 10:58 PM | Report abuse

What's with Hillary's continued remarks about Florida? Is she setting things up to count it as a "major win" even with the DNC pledge? As a FL Dem, I'd be insulted by any candidate crowing about a "victory" when they haven't even been to the state or acknowledged the primary until it was politically convenient.

http://www.political-buzz.com/

Posted by: parkerfl | January 26, 2008 10:56 PM | Report abuse

greebnershoj writes
"The most important "change"-related responsibility she has ever had was when her husband charged her with attempting to reform our healthcare system in 1992."

You forget her time on the Walmart board. She worked for change there too. Its not clear what she accomplished there, if anything. Bigger question: what did Walmart get, appointing the Gov's wife to the board??

Posted by: bsimon | January 26, 2008 10:54 PM | Report abuse

jallenba writes
"Clearly the remnants of racism hurt him in the older age groups in SC, but the other numbers bode well for his white support nationwide."

Racism or sexism? What's the gender breakout for older voters; and did they go for HRC or JRE? Perhaps female boomers voted for the female, rather than against the black dude.

Posted by: bsimon | January 26, 2008 10:50 PM | Report abuse

I found more telling the age breakdown within non-blacks in the exit polls. In the exit poll I saw, Obama took 52% of non-blacks aged 18-29, and then that trended inversely proportional to age until it bottomed out at 15% for the 60+ crowd. Clearly the remnants of racism hurt him in the older age groups in SC, but the other numbers bode well for his white support nationwide.

Tonight, between the rout at the polls and the victory speech, is a turning point in Obama's campaign, giving him the boost everyone thought Iowa would be.

Is Caroline Kennedy's endorsement a harbinger of Ted Kennedy's move? How could he oppose her, especially with how clear-cut and emphatic her endorsement was?


Posted by: jallenba | January 26, 2008 10:44 PM | Report abuse

Today's results show that Democrats in South Carolina do not appreciate it when a candidate uses race-baiting tactics when threatened by an opponent from outside the political establishment. That the Clintons have resorted to attempting to portray Senator Obama as the "Black Candidate" -- even though he won easily in overwhelmingly white Iowa and narrowly missed winning in New Hampshire and Nevada -- is both disappointing and disturbing.

On a separate subject, it continues to amaze me that no one in the national media questions Senator Clinton's mantra that she has "35 years of experience working for change." Maybe I'm missing something, but it seems to me that working for a corporate law firm in Arkansas and being married to a successful politician don't constitute working for change. And they certainly don't constitute evidence that one is capable of actually bringing about change.

With Senator Clinton, moreover, the evidence is directly to the contrary. The most important "change"-related responsibility she has ever had was when her husband charged her with attempting to reform our healthcare system in 1992. That didn't turn out so well. In fact, her failure in this regard was a major factor in the 1994 GOP takeover of Congress. Is this the kind of "experience" that Democrats should want? It is ironic, to say the least, that she now casts herself as the candidate who can fix the health insurance mess in this nation.

Posted by: grebneerghsoj | January 26, 2008 10:42 PM | Report abuse

I'd like to reinforce the point, but I am from New Hampshire. Obama did pretty darn well (37% or so) and there are about 5% minorities here, maybe 2% african american.

The coverage of this race certainly has a short-term memory. It's almost as if at 5 AM, the media would have us believe that current trends in solarity show darkness forever.

Posted by: steveboyington | January 26, 2008 10:38 PM | Report abuse

Here is something that nobody on networks or print media pointing out, south usually votes for white candidate any way, so Obama getting 25% of white vote is not as bad as it is made out to be. So on Feb 5th, California, Illinois, New York, New Jersey, etc the states with more educated, younger population and open minded white voters, they will vote for Obama. Its amazing how spin is in works by Clinton machine, she didn't even stay in SC for concession speech, even in Nashville she barely mentioned South Carolina. To me there is pattern emerging in which Clinton loss is blamed on setup of voting or demographics , spin, spin, and spin some more.

Posted by: dewanitum | January 26, 2008 10:37 PM | Report abuse

Obama won in Iowa where the last time I visted was mostly inhabited by whites. According to the results so far he is going to win at least 55% of the votes cast. In the last Democratic primary in 2004 the black candidate won 10% of the vote. If this was all about "black versus white," shouldn't that candidate have won at least 45% of the vote...47% of the voters were black in 2004. Guys, the folks who voted for Obama in Iowa, New Hampshire, Nevada and now South Carolina did so because the like his ideas. Can be get off this black and white thing?

Posted by: ZnanaB | January 26, 2008 10:31 PM | Report abuse

Obama won in Iowa where the last time I visted was mostly inhabited by whites. According to the results so far he is going to win at least 55% of the votes cast. In the last democratic primary in 2004 the black candidate won 10% of the vote. If this was all about "black versus white," shouldn't that candidate have won at least 45% of the vote...47% of the voters we black in 2004. Guys, the folks who voted for Obama in Iowa, New Hampshire, Nevada and now South Carolina did so because the like his ideas. Can be get of this black and white thing?

Posted by: ZnanaB | January 26, 2008 10:28 PM | Report abuse

"75% of white people didn't vote for Obama yet you think that the white male vote is going to be split between Obama and Clinton if Edwards drops out. How in the heck does that make sense?"

If whites had split evenly, he would have won 33%. On gender, Chris wrote "he ran almost dead even with Hillary Clinton among white males (29 percent for Clinton, 27 percent for Obama)." Which implies that with Edwards out, they split nearly evenly for Clinton & Obama, or just sit out.

Clinton, meanwhile, only did well among her core - white women. Not to promote my own storyline prediction, but Dems should think long and hard about nominating HRC, in terms of electability.

Posted by: bsimon | January 26, 2008 10:27 PM | Report abuse

This was a wipe-out by a freshman African-American senator with a funny sounding name against the most powerful and entrenched name in Democratic politics in the most conservative state in America. If he enjoyed equal exposure and name recognition, he'd wipe her out in every state and with every demographic. Just imagine what tonite's result would be if Hillary didn't enjoy the benefit of Bill's name, his record and his rolodex.

Posted by: jbentley4 | January 26, 2008 10:23 PM | Report abuse

To answer your question:

YES HE CAN!! I am fired up. I'll make phone calls to the entire country if I have to.

Posted by: GoHuskies2004 | January 26, 2008 10:20 PM | Report abuse

So, Chris, do you now understand that white voters are not afraid of Obama???

Posted by: GordonsGirl | January 26, 2008 10:18 PM | Report abuse

75% of white people didn't vote for Obama yet you think that the white male vote is going to be split between Obama and Clinton if Edwards drops out. How in the heck does that make sense?

Posted by: anonymous2006x | January 26, 2008 10:16 PM | Report abuse

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

If he sticks to form, he will not mention it explicitly.

Posted by: bsimon | January 26, 2008 10:12 PM | Report abuse

The comments to this entry are closed.

 
 
RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2010 The Washington Post Company