The debate about whether Edwards' remaining in the race helps Clinton or Obama is obviously put to rest.

what an inspiring and jubilant evening!!

www.barackobama.com

help!

First he's Ronald Reagan, then he's Jesse Jackson!

I think the Clintons are really on to something here...

Video of Obama's SC win speech here.

Definitely worth watching.

Call me crazy, but judging from the punditocrity tonight and the Caroline Kennedy endorsement in tomorrow's NYT, I'm putting my money on backfire.

Don't you mean "Obama won whites"?

Don't you mean "Obama won whites"?

No, Edwards won whites. It was, if I remember correctly, something like: Edwards 39%, Hillary 36%, Obama 24%.

Obama claims not to have won because of race. He claims that black and white are no longer an issue. Can we expect him to come out in favor of ending affirmative action tomorrow? I am sure that would help him get those Republicans and independents to cross over.

Obama claims not to have won because of race. He claims that black and white are no longer an issue. Can we expect him to come out in favor of ending affirmative action tomorrow? I am sure that would help him get those Republicans and independents to cross over.

Obama came out against race-based affirmative action (in favor of a class based system) about 10 months ago, on This Week with George Stephanopoulos.

Hmm. Then I wonder what this is about:

http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/01/26/sc.exit.polls/index.html?iref=mpstoryview

It says he won across "nearly all" demographic groups. I guess the ones he didn't win were elderly whites. I'm not all that shocked that old white people in SC didn't vote for the Black guy.

cynical, read the article. It says:

"And he had the support of nearly a quarter of white voters, while Clinton and former North Carolina Sen. John Edwards roughly split the remainder."

Do the math. Whether it was because of "old" people or not is irrelevant.

The reason this matters is because of things like this, the headline from the Washington Post:

"Obama Rides Wave of African-American Support to Win."

Not the way the Obama camp wants this spun, but it's kind of undeniable.

"Obama claims not to have won because of race. He claims that black and white are no longer an issue. Can we expect him to come out in favor of ending affirmative action tomorrow? I am sure that would help him get those Republicans and independents to cross over."

Ooh. Someone's feeling bitter tonight. Besides, did he claim that black and white are no longer an issue, or just that it isn't going to be the focus of the election (or his campaign)?

I think it's EXACTLY because of his GOTV organization, actually, & I don't see why that'd show up in the polls. Like Iowa before it: organize the crap out of the state & get your natural supporters out to vote in record numbers. I don't think the Clinton strategy worked great either, of course, but I wouldn't underestimate the leg work the Obama campaign did.

Obama came out against race-based affirmative action (in favor of a class based system) about 10 months ago, on This Week with George Stephanopoulos.

I don't remember it that way. He did not come out against race-based Affirmative Action. What he said was there are many poor whites who should be included as well. I believe what he meant is that he wants to mend Affirmative Action to where it's both race and class based. That way, both sides can benefit from the program. By the way, study after study has shown that Affirmative Action has benefited white women than any group in this country—so Obama coming out against it current system—trashing it—would be political suicide, and damage his chance to win a large number of minorities and women in the primaries and general election. It is minorities and women, after all, who are the beneficiaries of Affirmative Action.

Ezra,

Why am I not surprised you were surprised, Hillary pulled out of SC to work CA. sorry you didn't get the word.

If you want to wave Pom Poms don't expect to be taken seriously.

Since I don't like Hillary, I'm really at a loss that you can't do enough research to find out the facts.

Somebody else doesn't agree with you Ezra,

It's All Black and White

http://agonist.org/

Looking at the exit polls from SC Obama lost on the white vote, getting 2/3rds of what the other candidates got, and got four-fifths of the black vote. If that's not prima-facie evidence of a racial divide I don't know what is. It is simply not possible to discuss what happened in either Nevada (Latinos breaking for Clinton by a 30% margin and Blacks voting 83% for Obama) without discussing race. There is obviously a racial component to this primary season, and the media is not making it up. The numbers are brutal and overwhelming.

While SC is not typical, by any means, those results don’t translate well to the rest of the country which means that Clinton’s still the front runner for the party nomination, and I don’t know that this is going to change much in that regard. Clinton knew SC was lost, that’s why she didn’t campaign in SC for most of the week, just popping in for today.

For Edwards supporters, I’ll note that winning the white vote is a good omen for him. A lot more whites who still have to vote than blacks.

Southern whites and Latinos make up a lot more of the electorate than do blacks. Something to think carefully on

For those who are offended by this analysis: I see no way to discuss this primary without dealing with race. It’s pretty clear from these results that it matters.

A lot.

Ian Welsh January 26, 2008 - 9:11pm

And then you have Bill Clinton explain that, well, Jesse Jackson also won South Carolina.

I think that solidified any chance of the Clintons gaining black voters if Hillary becomes the nominee. Not only was that statement very patronizing and dismissive from Bill Clinton, but it proves, without a doubt, that the Clintons are out to make Obama the "token" black candidate of the Jackson and Sharpton variety. The Clintons are taking the black vote for granted, and believe if Hillary becomes the nominee, both can just kiss and make up, all things forgiven. I don’t see it playing out that way; both have done nothing but turn off black voters, one of the few voting blocks that helped Clinton win the presidency twice. He’s going to regret that statement.

I've learned two things from this campaign I didn't know before.

1. For the most part, people vote based on racial and gender identity. (Seems obvious now, but was never really tested before.)

2. There are considerable tensions between Hispanics and African-Americans.

Neither bodes well for Obama.

Jason C., I'm not sure I agree about the "considerable tensions between Hispanics and African-Americans." There have been many Black and Hispanic mayors in cities such as Los Angles that won a huge portion of the black and Hispanic vote respectively. I believe what it all boils down to is that Hispanics may feel Hillary Clinton is far more electable than Barack Obama. Granted, there are gang wars between blacks and Hispanics in the West, however, I don't think people should equate this with honest, hard-working Hispanics and Blacks who more often than not live considerably well with each other. Also, the so-called tensions between Hispanics and African-Americans depend on the state. Puerto Ricans and Dominicans in New York have a less tension with African-Americans than, say, Cubans and Mexicans in the South and West.

I'm very sad by this whole thing because I expected Edwards to do better than Clinton in SC. If anything, he's far more electable than either Clinton or Obama, yet the Democratic base is allowing identity politics to ruin and otherwise slam dunk election.

I think a lot of folks are missing a main part of the story. The Dem turnout was HUGE (bigger than the Republicans) in SC.

Obviously, part 1A of the story is a large Obama victory. But part 1B is that the Democratic turnouts have all been huge and that this reflects a real grassroots political movement. This movement represents a true shift in the political landscape--we'll see if it's durable.

Clinton's only wins have come in urban NH and urban NV where she had a big advantage with backing from a strongly entrenched political machinery. Everywhere else, Obama has been winning with a 'ground game' based on community organizing. I find it exciting to recognize a new politics that returns some of the power to the average joe.

Moving forward, a key question is how well Obama has been able to organize the Feb5 states. We'll see... but if he is the nominee, I think this new brand of politics could deliver a big majority in the general election with a united Dem party.

I'm very sad by this whole thing because I expected Edwards to do better than Clinton in SC. If anything, he's far more electable than either Clinton or Obama, yet the Democratic base is allowing identity politics to ruin and otherwise slam dunk election.

How do you explain mostly-white Iowa, where Edwards did well, but not as well as Obama? Or NH, where people voting for "experience" and perceived willingness to work went for Clinton? Or NV, a state that was discussed as being a strong union state where even Obama's endorsement by the CWU couldn't get him the win -- and Edwards pulled a shockingly low number? Or about the polls that reflect a split between Clinton and Edwards among low-income whites, who are supposed to be Edwards' target demographic judging by his campaign rhetoric?

Oddly enough, I think Edwards should stay in the race and is doing so for a pretty clear reason. By the same token that you think identity politics is ruling this primary race, I think Edwards and his staff are banking on a general squeamishness by ruling Dems (whoever they are) who might, come crunch time, still be fearful of running a minority candidate in the GE. It's unknown territory to cross in a crucial election.

So don't pretend like Edwards doesn't have a stake in identity politicking, too. Given Obama's low numbers among whites (esp white males) in SC, people have to be mulling this question: isn't a White Male from the South still a safer bet than a Black Man from the Big City when it comes to the GE, no matter how many votes the latter wins in a primary? Furthermore, how many white men from the South have campaigned on white good old boy-isms and won? History gives the advantage to Edwards.

White Male from the South also a safer bet than Power-Hungry Woman from Big City. Didn't mean to leave HRC out of the example.

"That could be a smart, if cynical, political ploy to press the media into racializing Obama's victory."

You mean you can’t tell the difference? It’s the Clintons version of the infamous southern strategy but you seem to be saying that if it works it’s “smart”. Pathetic.

So we learned Obama can add 80% of the African-American vote to his under 30, highly educated, and over $200K coalition. That might be enough to win states where A-As are over 20% of the population but he needs to start bringing in Latinos or some other large demographic block or he won't be able to get over the top.

It was very sad to see both the Clintons and some posters here denigrating what Barack Obama accomplished yesterday.
IT WAS TRULY A HISTORIC MOMENT.

Obama got more votes then the entire number of Democrats who voted in SC primary in 2004.

Obama and Clinton got about the same amount of the white male votes.

Last night was a huge wake up call for the old guard in the Democrat party. Bill Clintons snide comments and Hillarys' ohh so short, dismissive congratulations were the most classless I think I've ever seen.

The Clintons are once again damaging the party in favor of themselves.

"""Hillary pulled out of SC to work CA. sorry you didn't get the word."""

That's funny, I could have sworn Bill Clinton, two term Democrat President, beloved statesmen and first black President spent the entire week in South Carolina.

And Hillary came into the state with two days left claiming she was battling for the black vote:

Clinton campaign makes late S.C. push
Candidate won't cede black vote

By Marcella Bombardieri
Globe Staff / January 26, 2008
This week, as the first southern Democratic primary approached, Bill Clinton made 14 campaign appearances on his wife's behalf in South Carolina.

The Clinton campaign boosted its TV advertising and aired one of the most negative ads of the race this season, a radio spot that portrayed Obama as praising Ronald Reagan's policies and that many observers criticized for being misleading.

Hillary Clinton has spent more time in South Carolina in the final days than her campaign had indicated she would earlier in the week.

Maybe it was a historic moment if you were born after 1990. Some of us were involved with Jesse Jackson in 1988 and "we" won 11 states. If you combined the best of Edwards and Obama you have the Jackson campaign which incidentally advocated for single payer healthcare.

Let me know when Obama wins his tenth state.

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

WAKE UP DEMOCRATIC PARTY

Nominate Hillary and you lose a generation of voters.

Hillary only managed to win the 60 and over crowd. Take not the voters were 61% female and 39% male.....who was it that said women will carry Hillary to victory??

Rainbow Caolition ""Let me know when Obama wins his tenth state."""

See, there's part of the problem. This isn't a battle for states, its a battle for DELEGATES.

So far Obama has:
won Iowa,
tied New Hampshire,
won Nevada,
won South Carolina

Let me know when Hillary actually wins somewhere...

I don't think even the biggest Clinton supporters can now deny that the Clintons message is that a black persons vote for a black candidate is somehow less of a vote then a white vote. The Jesse jackson comment was just the coup de grace of the Clinton white power movement.

I don't remember any Clinton supporter saying, well of course Hillary won New Hampshire, but that was just whites voting for the white candidate.

Anonymous you are such a fucking loser.

I am not a loser. I am serial commenting to save the Democratic party from itself not to make me feel better about what a whiny ass I am.
You are all just jealous of my devastating wit and mad hyperlink skills. If anyone so much as disagrees with me again I will vote for and give money to Republicans for the rest of my life. I am so seriooousss about this. Go ahead try me.

A hearty cheer goes out to the 19% of black voters who think Obama is teh suck. And a round of applause to the 22% of white voters who feel the same way about Clinton and Edwards.

EXIT POLLS Obama

All

18-29 -- 67%
30-44 -- 62%
45-59 -- 55%

Non-Black 18-29 -- 52%

white 18-29 -- 49%

Black 30-44 -- 82%

[ Total 2008 South Carolina Primary Turnout

Democratic: about 530,322
Republican: about 446,000

Obama received more votes than all Democrats in the 2004 South Carolina Democratic Primary (292,383)

Obama received more votes in this primary than George W. Bush received in 2000 when he beat John McCain (Bush won 293,652 votes)

Obama has won more votes than McCain and Huckabee won in South Carolina--combined.

Republican turnout in the 2000 South Carolina GOP primary was about 573,000 (the state's record). This appears to make this primary the second highest turnout in South Carolina history. In other words, Democrats are likely going to finish about 40,000 shy of what the GOP was ever able to crank out in a state where Republicans outnumber Democrats by a wide margin.]

EXIT POLLS Obama

All

18-29 -- 67%
30-44 -- 62%
45-59 -- 55%

Non-Black 18-29 -- 52%

white 18-29 -- 49%

Black 30-44 -- 82%

[ Total 2008 South Carolina Primary Turnout

Democratic: about 530,322
Republican: about 446,000

Obama received more votes than all Democrats in the 2004 South Carolina Democratic Primary (292,383)

Obama received more votes in this primary than George W. Bush received in 2000 when he beat John McCain (Bush won 293,652 votes)

Obama has won more votes than McCain and Huckabee won in South Carolina--combined.

Republican turnout in the 2000 South Carolina GOP primary was about 573,000 (the state's record). This appears to make this primary the second highest turnout in South Carolina history. In other words, Democrats are likely going to finish about 40,000 shy of what the GOP was ever able to crank out in a state where Republicans outnumber Democrats by a wide margin.]

For those of you who are more cynical minded, here's some practicality. You only need two things to win elections in America, votes and money. Obama is getting both.

A Quick Fundraising Spike Online

[....online money was pouring in at the rate of more than $500,000 per hour.]

Obama's speech highlighted my chief fear about him, when he chided those who didn't think that the republicans would "come over." That's some hardcore "political jesus" rhetoric, and it's disturbing because he either won't or can't admit that the republicans will spend every waking minute trying to destroy him, should he win the nomination.

Fnor

I agree, but the problem is that Americans really aren't interested in democracy. It's a lot of hard work. It's easier to place all one's hope in a single individual rather than spend the next four years keeping his or her feet to the fire. George Bush, at least in the sense of political devotion, isn't an aberration. This goes for all candidates in whom people place too much faith rather than place their faith in holding them accountable. I have no faith in any of them. I have faith in those things for which I can concretely hold them accountable. That's not America right now. Not sure it ever was. But definitely not right now. Part of which can be explained the following dynamic shift:

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/27/magazine/27world-t.html?_r=1&ref=magazine&oref=slogin

The article discusses how America is no longer the world's hegemony. That's to me why this country is descending ever further into symbolism rather than substance. Our politicians are simply a reflection of that. Think of it as some old pro past his prime trying to recreate his glory years- that's America. Deep down we all kind of know that. So need the charismatic leader to help some of us forget.

Don't blame it on the media. BJC/HRC Inc. already racialized the win and the race.

As far as Obama's ability to get independents, republicans, and new voters anyone who is still questioning his ability to do that and not seeing why it's valuable to the Democratic party is just a bit too much in love with the status quo and not seeing clearly.

...or is caring that the democratic party will be moving even further to the right than it already has

Fnor, some of you hardcore partisans need to learn that it's not the President's place to hate 1/3rd pf the country. They have to be leaders of the country, not a political party. We have a President who puts loyalty to his class and party ahead of all other things right now, and I would suggest it's a bad thing.

It's one thing to want someone who will stand up for what you believe in and fight the Republicans in government and in the VRWC groups. That would be understandable. Many of you seem to want a President who hates rank and file Republicans, normal every day people. That's a bridge too far, and it is seriously very troubling.

Soullite,

Only two of my 25 voting years have been with both a Deomocratic president and Dem-controlled congress, so I do have a negative reflex reaction every time the word "bitpartisanship" comes up; my experience has been that the word usually comes to mean "right-leaning."

I do not hate rank and file republicans, but they tend to create the super-repubs that I do have problems with, that tell us 935 lies to mislead us into war. Do we want to work with those folks?

JJ, by your argument, we should simply settle for years of division and disaster. There are moderate/liberal Republicans and Independents (who lean Republican, but are open to a better offer) out there, and if a Democrat can pull them over to the better side of the fence, that's a winner. Plus, your approach will lose us votes and seats in the purple states for sure. Trust the math on this one.

we had a democratically controlled congress in 1993-94 and a Democratic President. there is a reason why we are concerned. its that the same forces in the present incarnate of the GOP that lead to 1994 are in play now in the GOP. indeed, have you wathed the GOP debates? I mean- seriously, talking about living in a bubble. it may help some of you who spend all your time telling those of use who question the kumbaya to actually leave your bubble and watch the GOP leadership to understand their dynamics as much as you mistakenly think you understand ours. Those who ignore history are condemned to repeat it.

JJ, no. But we don't actually have a choice in that either. It's not like they are all simply going to be vaporized under the power of Hillary Clinton's laser vision or anything. Hillary is going to have to deal with the same people as Obama would, and likely a somewhat similar mathematical situation.

In that case, I can look at the history of these two people and see who is likely to get a better deal. First, there is Hillary who is clearly a pro-corporate, pro-privatization Democrat. Not hard to see what kind of things will get done with her and Republicans hashing out deals. Namely, what corporations want to get done will get done, and nothing else will. It'll be FISA bills and Bankruptcy bills during every congressional session, and filibusters on everything else.

Obama? So what if he'll talk to them, I don't think he's actually going to trust them. More importantly, unlike Hillary, I don't think he shares their goals. He was, as much as I hate using this term as a rebuttal, a community organizer. That might not mean shit in terms of his ability to get things done, but it means a whole hell of a lot in determining where his priorities are.

The Clintons have a long history or talking a good game and then doing nothing to advance progressive or populist policies once in office. I don't care what they campaign on now, they'll just revert back to their usual form right after inauguration.

Voting Edwards so the anti-HRC arguments aren't doing it for me

As for repeating history, that is exactly what my post was agruing against, akaison; how can you not see the similarities between Obama's change/unifying talk now and Bill Clinton's of 92?

"those of us who actually question the kumbaya"

kumbaya is a very conveniently demeaning term, a fashionably snarky media invention to insult a large group of people.
if you choose to portray all of the supporters of barack obama as living in some sort of a bubble, you should give yourself a reality check, and visit their headquarters in your area.
it is a condescending and quite offensive term, and to use it against so many hardworking and intelligent people, concerned with, and confronting the same issues as you are, is quite condescending.
....i will say that the cynicism and uncharitability that is rampant in our culture, thinking, politics...is doing the greatest harm now.
when barack obama says that we need to transcend that, it is not, as you say, kumbaya...it is pragmatism.
whatever would hold a person back from acknowledging the need to coalesce, to attempt consensus,to engage in reason?
that kind of resistance must take a toll on one's spirit.
it is not a path of weakness. it is a path of strength.

You're changing the subject, soullite. We are concerned with getting a democrat elected. Despite your well-known hatred for the clintons, a great number of democrats trust any of the candidates to be a good, liberal president (I'll give Obama the benefit of the doubt, despite his proposals being the farthest to the right of the three). We aren't worried about the presidency, we're worried about what the republicans are going to pull and who can win in the general. If you don't think this is a vitally important concern see 2000 Election, The.

My concern, again, is not that Obama wouldn't make a good president. I think he would be a fine president. But he appears to be addicted to bipartisanship. Bipartisanship isn't just the idea of working with the other party, but actually working with the other party. The republicans do not want to work with us. Their entire political apparatus is designed to vilify us (not just our congressmen, mind, all of us). Why in god's name would they work with us when they gain more by not? They won't go along with their policies, and their base is energized every time they lose the current Battle To Save The Country. There is absolutely no reason for them to help us. Whatsoever.

Which is why I would prefer it if Clinton or Edwards won. I would vote for Obama. I would say I would campaign for him, but I live in Illinois so the issue is kind of moot. But I think that he is the right candidate at the wrong time. Vague concepts of change wrapped around personal charisma are good for inspiration, but we have already seen:

a) two major news cycles where he and his supporters had to clarify what he meant. I'm not inviting a debate about the Clintons, here. It really doesn't matter. If you're explaining what you really meant, you have lost. The public doesn't have time for nuance.

b) Him claiming he can "bring in republicans." I know we are the party of hope, but this isn't hope. This is delusion.

c) Vague policy arguments rather than concrete. The "I might add a mandate" is forefront in my thoughts. Any lawyer, negotiator or debater knows that you have to hit what you want first and hit it hard. He's chosen the worst of both worlds in that example: his plan isn't as liberal as the others, but he also tacitly supported mandates. So he has upset the democrats with a plan that isn't as strong as it should be, and given the republicans an angle of attack (both for supporting mandates and, as they would put it, "flip flopping").

These are all very dangerous, concrete things. I am by no means saying our other two candidates don't have faults. In the context of Obama's candidacy, however, this genuinely scares me.

If the republicans can turn a war hero into a traitorous coward, what else do you think they can do? You might say I am compromising due to their dirty politics, but I might say that an academic view of politics is useless. People supporting Obama say that politics should be the art of the possible. Possible doesn't mean thinking we can do anything. Possible is a candid assessment of what we can or cannot do.

"do we want to work with those folks"

you HAVE to work with those folks!!!!
it's not a choice!!

in life, we more often than not, do not get to choose who we work with.
success is about working WITH people, rather than against them.
little is accomplished without the pragmatism of consensus and some level of undertanding, tolerance and good will.
havent we had enough of that yet...even little rats in a cage eventually learn this lesson.

Fnor, you are ignoring a number of news cycles where the Clintons spent substantial time explaining themselves. And you ignore the fact that not all Republicans are alike - you can't compare say Chuck Hagel and Rick Santorum. In any case, the key aspect is Obama's ability to shift purple states towards blue and bring in Independents and liberal Republicans - which can be done, but not by Hillary, and questionably by Edwards.

Furthermore, the evidence on Edwards is that white men like him, but not by a huge margin, whereas women seem unenthused, while the amount of baggage carried by the Clintons makes it almost unnecessary for the Republicans to attack. Plenty of Democrats have been turned off them by the last two shabby weeks.

Finally, if you worry about bipartisanship, I suggest you remember DOMA, NAFTA, Don't Ask Don't Tell, Hillary authorizing the Bush war in Iraq, Hillary touting progress in that war in 2005.... Or don't you see that Hillary has played a failed bipartisan game all her life?

Fnor, you won't get them to not change the subject. if you notice the last post, it's what they do. they don't know how to look in the mirror so they will spend time telling you about the other candidates.

and by the way- since obama's chief strength is that he's running a charismatic campaign it shouldn't be too surprising that his supporters are typically not going to be good at the self reflection since charismatic campaigns feed of as little inward introspection as possible. i understand the kennedy's are supporting obama, and i thought to myself- yeah that kind of makes sense. its the kind of campaign their family ran at their height. the question as you say is whether he is the right candidate for the times, not whether he is progressive enough.

Ted Kennedy to Endorse Obama

I am predicting as of now that Clinton will gain the nomination.

"If anyone so much as disagrees with me again I will vote for and give money to Republicans for the rest of my life. I am so seriooousss about this. Go ahead try me."

Well, I've been practicing being a Republican for several months now and, I have to say, it's not that bad.

After all, one does have to prepare oneself for more Clinton fatigue and, indeed, they are shaping up to be even more outstanding as Republicans than even I thought.

It's a one party state. Get used to it.