Duh. Many of us have been pointing out that a polarized election helps the Clintons, which is why they were stirring all this up.

Notice that none of the focus is on the fact that Clinton has alienated a significant number of African-Americans. It's all on the fact that Obama has lost white voters.

The potential for racial polarization in this Southern state could damage his ability to transcend race as a basis of voting.

Er, o.k. whatever. So because some old Dixiecrats in SC will not vote for Obama, white midwesterners like myself are going to drop him like a hot rock? Forgive me, please, if I find this analysis a mite implausible.

Charles is a southerner as well as an expert on public opinion. Nothing earthshaking in that, but it puts his comments in some good context.

Obama was facing a very skeptical Black electorate, who just didn't believe that a Black man could actually be elected President. After all, this is America, and a recent CNN/Opinion Research Corporation poll asked if the country is ready for a Black president, 72 percent of Whites answered yes; only 61 percent of Blacks answered yes.

So, Obama faced a skeptical electorate; he was an unknown quantity, running against the most formidable Democratic Machine in a quarter century. All they knew about him was that he was a Senator from Illinois. And, what they did hear of him - Kenyan father, White mother, grew up outside of mainland USA - none of that translates well South of the Mason Dixon. Obama had work to do, and he did it. He did the grassroots organizing that helped him in the other first four states; he did the grunt work that a candidate starting with nothing does, and it helped him build himself in South Carolina. In this endeavor, Michelle Obama was Senator Obama's best campaign weapon, and she did a great job for him.

The tide began to turn Obama's way in South Carolina with the Oprah/Obama tour. Blacks were still hesitant. They were still on the fence. They were still skeptical that this was remotely possible. The coverage of the Iowa leg of the Oprah/Obama tour was very important. For Blacks to be able to SEE the response to Obama in that context. He could make 1,000 campaign commercials, and it wouldn't have matched that Iowa leg of the tour. When they arrived in South Carolina, to a stadium with a healthy percentage African-American audience, wondering, ' Could it be?' That was the question. While the demographics of Oprah's audience skew White, Oprah Winfrey is RESPECTED by Black women. Respected for all that she went through and still found a way, out of no way, as a visibly Black woman with Black features, to be quantified as an unmitigated American Success Story. And, along the way, Oprah never forgot that ' To Whom Much Is Given, Much Is Expected', as her philanthropic efforts show.

Oprah basically told that audience that NOW is the time, and that this was the moment to believe. That don't listen to those who would tell you that Obama had to ' wait his turn'. That they KNEW what that meant; that, never in the history of THIS country, had ' Black' and ' the right time', ever been used together in a sentence.

Black South Carolina decided to believe; decided to ' go for it' on the night of January 3rd - when, in the middle of 90+% White Iowa, Barack Obama was declared the winner of the Iowa Caucus.

Some have derided Black South Carolinians for waiting for others to decide before making their own choice. I choose to believe that it IS a political sophistication and maturation on their part. After all, we've been through the symbolic runs for The Presidency: Shirley Chisholm in 1972, Jesse Jackson in 1984 & 1988. If this was about supporting ' The Black Candidate', when why didn't Al Sharpton and Carol Moseley Braun do better? Because, Black folk had ' been there and done that', and if they were going to invest in it, they wanted a candidate with a serious chance. They knew that any Black candidate couldn't be elected without White support, and they needed to see if Obama would actually get support in states where the Black electorate is negligible. Iowa and New Hampshire answered that question.

So, it took from February 2007 until January 2008, for Barack Obama to become a clear choice in South Carolina. It took that time for Black South Carolinians to accept that Barack Obama WAS a serious candidate, and all that means. That, they had to accept this 'New' type of Black leadership as not only valid, but viable. To become comfortable with the pretext that Barack Obama COULD NOT be ' The Black Candidate Running for President' a majority of the time, but that he had to be 'The Candidate Running for President Who Happens To Be Black', and make peace with that.

February 2007 - January 2008: That doesn't scream obvious; that doesn't scream overnight sensation; that screams that the Black South Carolinian Population was deliberate about their decision making in terms of the Democratic Primary and should be respected as such. If those voters were such sheep, then wouldn't they be following in lockstep with the Black Establishment in South Carolina that, for the most part, has declared themselves for Hillary Clinton?

Which brings me to the second point - An Obama victory in South Carolina doesn't REALLY count as a win because of the sizeable Black population in South Carolina.

So, let me get this straight - Hillary Clinton wins White women in New Hampshire, and it's this great victory, but if Barack Obama wins South Carolina, after ten months of campaigning, because of sizeable Black support, it doesn't REALLY count?

What is this - are we back to being Three-Fifths once again?

The Black vote doesn't count as much as the White vote?

I'm going to say this as obviously as I can:

YOU DO NOT WANT TO GO DOWN THIS ROAD.

You simply don't.

There is this underlying condescension that has been creeping into the "Progressive" blogs that, ' oh, well , THEY - meaning Blacks- have nowhere else to go. So, the Clintons and their proxies, who are actually race-baiting, but we'll say that they aren't, and tell those Blacks who are informing us as to what they see that it's in their IMAGINATION - well, they'll shut up, go SIT IN THEIR PLACE and turn up in November like they're SUPPOSED TO. '

That's not a bet you want to take.

Black folk don't have to vote for McCain or any GOPer. They can just STAY HOME in several critical states, and the GOP wins. Thinking that you can scare folk with the GOP Bogeyman after you've been disrespecting Black folk, is both offensive and disrespectful

I forgot to put my name in for that last post with the Dec SurveyUSA poll.

My take is the last sentence of that post.

Looks like people in general are turning away from Clinton from these numbers. Whites going to Edwards, blacks to Obama.

If these numbers are accurate to reality, I don't think the blacks voting for Obama is the only issue. She'll have lost because Edwards took some votes from her.

M Miller, thanks for that perspective.

how about a headline: Obama wins in state that at one point elected Strom Thurmond. Please people! Alot of racial dynamics haven't changed in the deep South such as South Carolina. Did people actually expect a majority of white southerners to vote for Obama?
I'm just thrilled that he has a good shot at winning!!!! Billary can spin it any way they want, but I sincerely hope that she and her power-mongering racist husband will continue to be exposed for the slimy, do anything to win antics that we just don't want anymore in the US. And I'm a white middle class female ... I like the idea of having a woman president, I used to at least have some respect for the clintons. But it's time people! Time to move on from fear and entitlement to someone who we could be proud of as a president. Elect Obama! Go on with your bad self South Carolina! May Strom roll in his grave!

("segments," of course)

Let us all keep in mind we are talking about South Carolina not a diverse state.

People please don't forget, South Carolina isn't all that of a liberal place. It is in no way surprising that whites are not voting for Obama. I believe if every election from now till 2100 had a Black candidate, SC would be the last state to turn out 50% support amongst whites, and that's just the reality.

So lets keep it real. Obama 08.

Franklin is trying to spin the numbers. White people are supporting Obama. 21% is a lot when there are three canidates.

It pretty much means the majority of edwards supproters are all white. Edwards is from South Carolian if he can't do well in South Carolina he should just quit. Are they saying Edwards count appeal to black in a general election?

NJ, Obama is a Christian, not a Muslim. His (I believe) stepfather was Muslim by birth, but did not practice and was essentially areligious. His Church is a Christian Church, though many of its members are African Americans. He's talked eloquently about his religious conversion, and the importance of faith in his life. If you don't want to vote for the man, don't vote for him. But please stop spreading hateful, vicious, xenophobic, and yes, racist rumours. If you are a patriot as you claim, it is unworthy of you.

I cannot believe that any reputable website would allow the posting that "NJ" has posted.

Yes. IDIOT. I'm talking about you.

I saw the same bulk email that you got your information from (and you pretend that you did research...) Some idiot posted the same spam email in our staff room at the school where I teach. It was SO racist and SO offensive that I did not believe any self-respecting Dem would fall for it. It talked about "Muslims" wanting to bring down the USA. Preaching that stupid subtext "Fear them Muslims, fear 'em."

I am a teacher. I am a Christian. I know right from wrong. It is wrong to assume that because someone worships in a different way, to treat them with hate. It is a sin to lie and push someone else's lies.

Barack Obama is not a Muslim. He swore in on the Bible. There was a Muslim Congressman in the House of Representatives (which is different than the Senate -- just in case "NJ" knows nothing of politics -- I can only assume) that person was sworn in on the Koran, because THAT person was Muslim and it would be STUPID for them to be sworn in on the BIBLE unless they were a Christian. There is NOTHING wrong with Muslims being in office, but that does not mean that Barack Obama is one.

Now, thank goodness "NJ" is a Hillary supporter, because I wouldn't want a slandering, lazy biggot on my side. "NJ" can stay away from the Obama and Edwards camp where people do their homework and not leave it to unsigned bulk spam mail. (Unless, of course, "NJ" is the one who wrote it. Would make sense for it to come from the Hillary camp. They certainly benifit from the slander.)

Please, people research before you vote. Look at the way people run their campaigns. Are they starting fights or defending themselves? Go to their websites. How are their plans? Do they make you excited to be voting? I'm done with the least of two evils. I will not support dirty politics. This anti-muslim thing that this Hillary supporter is touting really makes me think that maybe I won't support just any Dem this time. I think Hillary needs to publicly denounce this email or I am going to start assuming that it came from her camp.

To Anonymous @ 6:09 pm:

Great post. There are millions of whites and blacks all over the country who aren't going to sit back and take this garbage. We will fight for it together coming out of SC, and stay home later if that's what it comes to. This is a gut check for the country.

i think the DNC and the whole party is way off base .......caucus and proportioned delegates instead of winner take all states prolong the primary season and cause a lot of tension in the party....in 1980 the candidates beat on each other so much they were wounded and reagan won the election.....in this election with one winning the pop vote and only getting a portion of the delagtes will keep these 3 pounding each other possibly til may or june and in a year when a potted plant can beat the GOP..we could possibly end up losing because of this stupid DNC decision to strip delegates and trying to have 4 states get all the advantage of picking our candidate.....its not helping the party or the candidates or for that matter the voters ....obama wins iowa and is only 1 delegate up......hillary wins NH and the D's are tied ....she wins nevada obama get one more D....this is stupid....he wins SC and wont gain anything ......that means they have to get meaner and meaner to try to separate themselves and all we do is give the GOP ammo to beat either one of them

It wouldn't surprise me that in the end it turned out that Hillary or Bill organized that comment and email. There has been many mysterious things that have happened around the clintons that have worked out in their benefit.

Down with Hillary.

Bring the Hope!!!!

Obama 08.

I think it's important to keep in mind that white/black and women/men are two incredibly simplistic demographics, if you're trying to get a picture of who your actual voting blocks are.

I suspect - although, of course, I haven't done the empirical research myself - that Edwards's "white voters" and Clinton's "white voters" live very different lives. I suspect that Obama's "men" and Edwards's "men" are different. You get me? From my own anecdotal knowledge of the region (I'm a North Carolinian), and a basic understand of the sociological structures of the contemporary U.S. (i.e., not stereotypes, but Census data, etc.), I would guess that Edwards is pulling rural, working class whites, while Clinton is pulling the more affluent, urban Charlestonian voters. I would also guess that this is a big part of why Edwards's support is so overwhelmingly white - because his support is (again, I'm guessing) overwhelmingly rural.

This should not, of course, be read as predictive for black/white (etc.) categories beyond this particular primary, unless you're looking at another state with extremely similar demographics. In other words, I don't think it's fair to say that any candidates' performance in SC is predictive of their appeal to any large voting group like "African-Americans" or "women." It might be possible to say that it's predictive of his/her appeal to, say, unemployed urban African-Americans women living in the South (I'm just making that up, and not saying which candidate ... just a hypothetical).

so we need to get over the simplistic identity politics for the good of the party, imo, but also because it makes us look stupid.

Dear Readers,

Noboy's post compels me to write. It is easy to dismiss this as the rant of an unbalanced racist which it is. Still, what started this -- a cool clear-headed decision by the Clintons to play the race card for personal and political advantage. This was despicable enough in itself, bu the fact that the Clintons probably justified this because they would be "bettter" for the country
reveals a mindset that is dangerous in any political leader. I am not willing to say I would not vote for Clinton but to see Bill and Hillary stoking the buried embers of racism stuns me. Perhaps, four years of McCain, followed by 8 years of Obama would be an alternative? This is a serious post so please don't dismiss me. I would like peoples' thoughts.

NJ and Noboy,

You are fucking morons.

I would just like to say, that thanks to Craig Crawford who spoke the truth on Scarborough this morning when he stated that the Clintons are NOT injecting race into the election. IT'S THE MEDIA STUPID. Scarborough and Mike Barnacle of course love to keep repeating this lie (as well as Chris Mathews on his shows). As Crawford said, where's the evidence? Its the media who keeps saying this. And IT WAS OBAMA who made SC about race when he held a civil rights ralley with Oprah IN SC at the start of his campaign, stirring the african-amercian community down there. ITS OBAMA, who wants it both ways. He transcends race or so he'd have us believe, while at the same time, he's making it all about race. So which is it? Regardless of which it is, ITS NOT the Clintons. Thank you, Craig Crawford, for some straight talk sanity. Shame on the media types like Mathews, Scarborough and Barnacle. And I've got more on Barnacle in another post.

Mike Barnacle dispared all of us who have the nerve to pay attention to what he and Mathews and others are doing to try to effect the outcome of the nominations. He had the nerve to refer to us in a manner to the effect of these people who watch cable news all day with their computers nearby, firing off emails. Well, how dare we, the public, speak our feeble minded opinions?! As Mike Barnacle apparently feels we should all sit back and let him and Mathews and the others with blatently biased agendas, TELL us how and what to think, even if its all lies. If it weren't for us little people who sit around watching cables news 24 hrs a day, I doubt that HE, Barnacle, Mathews, and Scarborough would have a job. SHAME on you Barnacle. Who the HECK do you think you are??

"As Crawford said, where's the evidence? Its the media who keeps saying this. And IT WAS OBAMA who made SC about race when he held a civil rights ralley with Oprah IN SC at the start of his campaign"

This is what makes Craig Crawford's analysis, along with yours - so nonsensical. I mean, how can Bill Clinton's claim that black people will vote for Obama not injecting race - and Oprah simply appearing with Obama injecting race? Straight lunacy.

"ITS OBAMA, who wants it both ways. He transcends race or so he'd have us believe, while at the same time, he's making it all about race. So which is it?"

First off, that horrific Oprah example aside - how has Obama injected race? With the Clinton camp, Bill Shaheen, Bob Kerrey, Bob Johnson, Mark Penn - spewing rehearsed lines about drug use and the whole "he's a muslim" smear. Bill Clinton with his "Obama should wait his turn" rhetoric - that sort of language sounds familiar to all the people who fought for civil rights. Craig Crawford is a hack with no argument whatsoever.

Jay,

Oprah didn't "simply" as you said, show up for a campaign ralley and endorse Obmas. It was an all out civil rights ralley. It was Oprah who used all the race based language such as "they say you should wait your turn", "it's not your time" etc. She repeated all the old language to get people stirred up and ticked off. She didn't encourage people to just vote for Obama because he was the right person. She was pushing the race issue, saying to vote for him because he was the right Black person. If you don't think that is not injecting race into the campaign, then you drank too much of the koolaid!

As for that muslim statement, NO ONE in the Clinton campaign OR the Democratic organization put that out there. It's the republicans who are all stirring this up to divide the democratic party over the nomination first, then to destroy the eventual nominee second.

Rae

In NH Hillary sent out fliers lying about Obama's record on women's rights issues. Imagine if Obama had done the analogous thing in SC. He'd never get away with it. However, Hillary did get away with it as the media swooned over her 2.54 seconds of choking up before going into her stock attacks on Obama. I think it's insulting to think that was the cause of Hillary's late surge with women voters in NH. The false information about Obama's votes on choice is more likely the cause. One hopes that the media will be balanced in assessing the approaches that the two campaigns have taken to reaching women and minority voters. I don't think that Obama has done anything as shameful as Hillary's lies about his record on choice.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OVuMYKs8iJs&feature=user

Win the state but lose the country.....kinda dumb to me.

So, having Oprah simply stump with Obama wasn't injecting race at all. Sorry.

Does this mean Obama will win with 43%, or that 43% of the voters prefer him? In other words, is it taking bogus voting machines into account?

Yeah, Craig Crawford embarrassed himself this morning - providing absolutely no evidence that the Obama campaign introduced race in the campaign. Sorry.

Thanks Kefa. Actually I had been saying that about the use of Oprah all along and had posted that somewhere? maybe not this board but was surprised to finally see someone in the media actually noticed that move on Obama's part. So I will only give Craig 1/2 credit (myself the other 1/2) :)

I will support whoever the nominee is, whether it be Hillary, Obama or Edwards but really wholeheartedly believe that Hillary is the most experienced, knowledgable candidate and think that Bill will be a plus having in office with his charismatic personality, his experience with other world leaders, etc. Having the Clintons in office will go far in restoring our place in world affairs. Other countries and their leaders all liked the Clintons. Bill came closer to any other is bringing about peace in the middle east and solved our economic problems in the 90s. They can do that again.

What has Obama done? (Forget about this race thing that HE started.. btw, Clayborn NEVER said this a.m. that Clintons injected it; Scarborough would hardly let him talk. It was Scarborough that said it and now they are all claiming Clayborn said it. They just don't stop)

But getting back to what's important.... What has Obama done?? He voted over 100 times "Present", he pushed the wrong button 5 times??!... It really looks like he was positioning himself to run for office more than trying to vote for the issues that concerned Penn. He's a one time 'new' Senator. That's it! That's his experience and skills? We need someone experienced in world affairs as well as economic policy. He just doesn't cut it regardless of how personable you might think he is or how well he can give a speech. The republicans I fear, would tear him apart.

The African American community who are supporting him mainly because of his race would be disappointed if he doesn't get the nomination. But I've been waiting for 20+ years for a FEMALE president, most ardently the past 8 years. And I will be VERY disappointed if Hillary's victory is now taken away by a newcomer after all the years some of us have been waiting for Hillary's time. Especially when Obama's record and credentials just can't hold a candle to hers.

Rae

All elections in this country are racially polarized. The corporate media only mention elections being racially polarized when African Americans are winning.

Im not sure who to vote, who is the best candidate that might support Gay Marriage? Let me know, I have two weeks. I want to vote on the issues, not popularity contest.
David, partychicago@hotmail.com