I don't think anyone seriously thought he'd move into 2nd place, especially after Clinton pulled out all the stops and returned to blast him with those robocalls.

I don't think he was very smart in starting to attack Obama. He should have focused on knocking down Clinton so he could pass her. I don't know what he was thinking.

MSNBC: Wolfson went out at 1 to concede a 12 pt. loss

AP's now looking at 24%

I hope Edwards stays in. He gives voice to a constituency and set of concerns that would otherwise get less attention, and he's been a lot more substantive this time around than in 2004.

Edwards needs to quit kissing Clinton ass then, obviously they aren't going to spare him any love.

You can't make this up...

Folks, I'm linking right back to the mothership at talkingpointsmemo.com. Josh has posted the video of Bill shellacking Obama with a coat of Jesse Jackson black, and now this:

"Clinton campaign strategists denied any intentional effort to stir the racial debate. But they said they believe the fallout has had the effect of branding Obama as "the black candidate," a tag that could hurt him outside the South."

Today, Democrats voted for Senator Obama by more than double the number that voted for Hillary. She courted those voters, so do not try to now spin it as not meaning anything. She got slaughtered, after her, and The First Black President tried everything they could to win.

Spin all you want to; it still ends up that Senator Obama wiped the floor today with both of the Clintons.

Momentum aside, based on the four states so far, it looks like Obama has a clear plan to the nomination. Break even with Clinton outside the south--he's already shown he can do that--and win handily in the south.

TPM,

I celebrate. I sleep well tonight. I wake up with great joy tomorrow. And, then, I have coffee and watch This Week (ABC).

Read Colbert I. King's 1/26 essay on the two Clintons' machine in Washingtonpost.com

GO USA! GO OBAMA! GO USA!

Liam wrote on January 26, 2008 8:42 PM:

"Spin all you want to; it still ends up that Senator Obama wiped the floor today with both of the Clintons."

Yes, he did. And what you are going to see in the coming weeks is a stronger sense of resolve in the Democratic voters who do not want to see Obama nominated. I am confident that is more than half of the party.

I'd say that hurts Edwards and voters will be less inclined to split their opposition votes by giving them to a candidate who cannot finish higher than 3rd.

A Webb endorsement wouldn't surprise me one bit

Please explain how the anti-dynastic Obama fans can square that position with enthusiastically trumpeting Caroline Kennedy's endorsement.

My fav moment so far tonight was Hillary's statement that included this tidbit: "We now turn our attention to the millions of Americans who will make their voices heard in Florida and the 22 states as well as American Samoa who will vote on February 5."

As American Samoa goes, so goes the nation?

Nah, she knows it's about delegates. Every, single delegate. John Edwards' delegates. American Samoa's handful of delegates.

Anyway, back to trying to figure out why more Americans aren't lining up behind the best candidate and the one most likely to win in November: John Edwards.

Sigh.

This is just getting started.

We are tired of business as usual in Washington
Barack Obama

Beat her like a drum

Obama 55%
Clinton 27%
Edwards 18%

If you think the dynastic principle is illegitimate, then there's no reason to care what Caroline thinks. If you want to think that Caroline's endorsement is meaningful AND condemn the role of dynasties in American political life, then the burden's on you to explain why Caroline would be important without her surname.

It's really quite simple.

Although maybe not for people who equate being from Kansas with being from the third world.

Apparently, hobgoblin, you don't understand the meaning of the word "dynasty." And nice try twisting my words.

The Cllintons have proven that they are scum again with the robocalls on JRE.

I was just looking up turnout for the 2004 SC primary and the election results caught my eye -- contrast John Edwards, then and now.

2004 SC Democratic Primary Results.

Edwards 45%
Kerry 30%
Sharpton 10%
Clark 7%
Dean 5%
Lieberman 2%
Kucinich 1%

Overall turnout looks to be up a good 75-80% over 2004 though.

OK, thanks for the clarification.

I do think dynastic principle is illegitimate, yes. That is my take on it and I think that was largely the basis our nation was built upon. But wait, you say, a Kennedy has endorsed Obama. Does not compute!

Look, if JFK had served two terms and then had used his position as titular head of the party in 1976 to stump for Jackie (or Bobby for that matter), and if he had done so with every legitimate and less than legitimate lever at his disposal, we could probably draw more apt comparisons. If, in that bizzaro universe I just described, we were in danger of going Eisenhower/Kennedy/Eisenhower/Kennedy, that would make it an even more apt comparison.

What I'm saying is that the fact that Caroline Kennedy is endorsing Barack Obama is in no way germain to any concerns of the effects of dynasty on Presidential politics. I think this is self evident to most people, but maybe I'm wrong.

As far as the Kenya/Kansas comment, I think that was meant to show that a child of two cultures can understand both, not that they are both "third world countries". I think you may want to clean your filter.

Regards.

So, Caroline's endorsement isn't germane to the question of dynasty in American political life. Got it. But, if you take the mantle of dynasty away from her comments, why do you care what she has to say?

All I'm saying is that there's no way she'd make national news if it weren't for her family background, just as I rather doubt that Clinton would be where she is in the primaries without her presidential connections. Celebrate one and decry the other, but recognize that your evaluation is merely instrumental.

Hobgoblin,

Your point is well taken, and on the narrow point I agree with you. The quote you use about consistency is one of my favorites but to my ear you are misapplying it. Consistency is the hobgoblin because if you are entirely consistent with a principle (dynasty bad) you can miss the forest for the trees. Not to get to far off track, but if you have read Winesburg, Ohio by Sherwood Anderson there is that great story (called Truth I think) that speaks to this point.

Like most things there is a matter of degree here. Kennedys have influence, but the Clintons are trying to hijack the whole damn party in my opinion.

Thanks for a respectful back and forth.

Seems to me many are forgetting way back when during the time of Oprah in SC and the huge stadium rallies…
There was much discussion of how she spoke…she dropped her billionaire speech and launched into “Southern preacher” mode, totally out of her usual speech (not a movie role). Many wondered about his “act” and whether THIS was playing a race card!! Remember???

And one has to wonder why Martin Luther King III advised Edwards to stay in the contest?? Maybe it's because the Billary -Obama camps are both pretty low.

Re: Dynasties, Clintons, and Kennedys

I'm sorry to have to disagree with you, hobgoblin (especially since you've kept such an even and respectful tone), but there are several ways in which acknowledging the importance of Caroline Kennedy's endorsement squares with an antipathy toward dynastic politics.

1. Caroline's endorsement depends mainly on a comparison between Obama and the effect he has had on people and Kennedy and the effect he had in his time. As someone who knew Kennedy and who has been in a unique position to know Kennedy's friends and supporters, Caroline possesses an authority in making that comparison that almost no one else could have.

2. The importance of that comparison - of the similarities she sees between JFK and Obama - lies in who the two men are in themselves. No one can say that Obama owes his position to Kennedy, or that Kennedy might further some personal ambition by supporting Obama.

3. What concerns people about dynasties is their ability to use family connections to supplement deficiencies in intrinsic qualities - in other words, their ability to subvert meritocracy. That Caroline Kennedy should endorse Obama suggests that his intrinsic merit supersedes loyalty to her own family - despite the fact that she cannot have known him for more than a few years, and despite the fact that there still are plenty of ambitious politicians with blood or marriage ties to the Kennedys. In other words, her endorsement turns dynastic politics on its head - and so is remarkable and newsworthy.

I write all this as an Edwards supporter. I'm just hoping Obama will, like JFK, offer the vice president slot to an ambitious southerner - even if it's a surprise when he accepts.

NC-11
Huhn? What authority or experience are you talking about? She was 6 when JFK was assassinated. Sorensen's comparison's I'll buy, on the basis of experience. Caroline, not so much.

Also, I was unaware there was a Kennedy in the race. It's hard to see this as a case of competing loyalties.

Sorry, but my silliness detectors are still going off. It's not that I'm anti-Obama, I just don't think that the endorsement of one author of childrens' books is swoon-worthy if you have an a priori commitment to not letting politics be determined by reverence for dynasties.

Hillary is crashing. Her "What, me worry?" departure from SC provides Edwards the ammo to pass her. Which will force the media to focus on his platform. It's a potent, fully defined one. This will, in turn, force Obama to substantiate his positions. Sorry, gang but while Obama is quite charismatic, his plans are pretty much business as usual. Real change goes to Edwards.

I don't see how this is a setback for Edwards particularly given the media hype that barely allows the average tv watcher to learn he is running. I think he did pretty well.

As for Hillary's dirty little robocall, yes, that ought to be made into a major issue. But it won't be, because that would interfere with the woman vs the black man story the media is obsessing over. It isn't about race, so why does it matter. This is a nation of morons pretty much because those who are supposed to educate them about current events are the most stupid and petty people on the planet.

Anon (11:51 PM)-

You got it exactly right. 'Nuf said.

I find it interesting that Hillary's polling had it exactly right - she was competing with Edwards for the white vote, and the black vote (except a bit on the older side) was pretty firmly set for Obama. Obama got 25% of the non-black 30-59 vote and only 15% of the 60+ non-black vote. Edwards slightly beat Hillary in the first sector, and tied her in the 2nd. Oddly to me, Hillary beat Edwards in the non-black youth vote, but perhaps so many going for Obama (50%) siphoned off most who would have voted for Edwards.

The real irony here is that I haven't been this excited about the Dem candidate *since* 1992. Yeah, how much foreign policy experience did *that* guy have, picabia?

Don't worry, you all will probably end up dragging us all back into the matrix, and we'll all end up with President McCain. And yeah, it will be your fault.

Aw, poor baby, I understand. You are going through withdrawal since you did not get your daily fix of pigsty politics, because your Clin-tons of smears and slimes express got derailed in South Carolina.

Oh, and one other thing about that campaign finance reform credibility of McCain. Have all of you been thinking about how both Clinton and Obama might compare to McCain on that issue? If you're thinking about November, you should be!