Fantastic speech!

Let's push history forward!

Yes, I believe.

I knew the polls were closing at 7PM Eastern (6PM where I'm at). I was working at the time, but conveniently snuck away from my cube to watch the returns on MSNBC in the breakroom. When I saw they'd called it before even the returns started coming in I whooped so loudly that the whole office heard me! Someone woulda thought I was watching the superbowl, but this was much, much sweeter :-)

I'm a two-time Clinton voter, and I think it is time for the Clinton dynasty to end.

Nice teleprompted speech.

He's gonna struggle just like Bush.

Matthew, true.

Obama is dreadful at debates, he also doesn't accept many questions, just like Bush..

However, he can deliver a good speech.

Great speech, he has the skills for sure. I am an Edwards supporter, but will go with the big O if my man drops, which I don't think he should. It is unfortunate for Senator Clinton that her name will be more of a problem than a help. All three would do fine as President, but change in the way it defined in our ADD society requires an Obama or Edwards win.

If you had a speech to give with that much on the line, would you just wing it?

Yes. We. Can!

Go Barack! Imua Obama!

The guy not only delivers a fantastic speech, he's smart and poetic enough to actually write them, too.

ps. Still like the decent John Edwards, but the Clintons have lost their lock on my loyalty because of Bill's nasty and untrue personal attacks and Hillary's failure to move beyond standard fare rhetoric and the political tactics of the Rovian past. We don't need to be better than Rove to beat the Republicans, we need to be different.

And yes, I am also a 2x Clinton voter, but not this year.

Just an appeal to all Obama supporters to back up our enthusiasm with money, time, and hard work. Let's go make some phone calls, knock on some doors, write some checks and get it done the hard way.

That is all.

This speech was excellent, as all of Obama's major televised have been.

As for the his debate skills, they're not bad, but they're not great. However, President's don't spend their time in debates. This is not the UK. Mind you, I do think a regular forum for debate would be healthy for the country, but this not how our Presidencies have operated. Our Presidents have spent their time giving speeches - speaking from the podium, optimally with the leadership, wisdom, and oratory skills to make a difference for the better. That is what Obama is offering us.

If I remember correctly, October was when Clinton imploded in a debate (the driver's license question). It was the first time the inevitability meme was cracked.

John Aravosis asks, looking at the S.C. polls, what happened at the end of November that made both Obama and Edwards numbers start to rise?

Perhaps Hillary Clinton's interview with Katie Couric? Date - November 26th.

See
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/11/26/eveningnews/main3540666.shtml

In pertinent part,

"If it's not you, how disappointed will you be?" Couric asked.

“Well, it will be me,” she said.

But she said she would stand behind any other Democratic nominee, if it came to that. “We're going to have unified party, behind whoever we nominate.”

Clearly, she has considered the possibility she won't be the nominee?

"No, I haven't," Clinton said.

I hope the Obamaites recognize that the only reason Obama walked away looking like a great victor was because of John Edwards.

This was made into a great win for Obama by splitting away the voters who would have cast their votes for Clinton had Edwards not been in the race. It didn't look close, but it was close folks.

With the disproportionately large black vote in SC, which ought to have been Obama's from day one, Obama was made only to look competitive with the Witch Queen of New York. Had Edwards not been there protecting his flank, Obama would have won only in a squeaker---a razor thin victory.

So children, before you drink any more of the yummy kool aid... your superhero is not indestructible except when kryptonite is present. He is quite vulnerable and anyone who doesn't recognize that is either stupid or in denial. Hillary (and I can't stand her believe me) is poised to smash Obama on Super Tuesday where no state has a black population anywhere near as big as that of SC. And, because Edwards--the real liberal and the only candidate talking about actually DOING something to change the status quo---is still in the race, Obama remains alive and appearing to be competitive.

I am quite frankly amazed that the Obama zealots don't understand that they are not only not winning, but they aren't doing it on their own! It's the white southern male in the race that's making Obama's victory possible.

Obama's entire campaign is propped up by an understandable but nearly irrational white liberal desire to "prove" a black guy can get elected and they have completely abandoned all reason and common sense in order to achieve their goal. The Republican Party is salivating over the chance to destroy either Obama OR Clinton! Does nobody get that? Jeeeeeeeezus Christ are you deaf and blind folks?

The Democratic electorate is not the general electorate. A nondrooling, very white Republican man is going to destroy either Obama or Hillary in November and not in a close election either.

It will be an historic election alright, but not like you dumbasses are thinking. Wake the fuck up people! You're dreaming if you think Obama or Clinton will get elected. It ain't gonna happen. You are handing the Republicans a near freebie!

"This was made into a great win for Obama by splitting away the voters who would have cast their votes for Clinton had Edwards not been in the race. It didn't look close, but it was close folks."

Hmm...let's see.

27 (Clinton) + 18 (Edwards) = 45.

So, assuming all Edwards voters would vote for Clinton without Edwards in the race...

Obama still wins by ten points, 55-45.

"John Aravosis asks, looking at the S.C. polls, what happened at the end of November that made both Obama and Edwards numbers start to rise?"

If aravosis was serious he wouldn't even pretend a poll from November was relevant to a primary in jan. That's if he was serious. The undecideds/don’t knows for most polls were in the 40% to over 50% range. And nobody was paying attention. The polls were strictly going on name recognition. The last part is my guess the undecided are right in the polls, go look. Look at the exit/entrance polls. Depending on which ones, 30% or more were making up their minds in the last week. Now if somebody is unserious and has a script then meaningless polls can be very useful.

The answer to John Aravosis' question is Oprah. The week before Thanksgiving. University of South Carolina Stadium in Columbia.

That's when Obama solidified his African American base.

It coincided with the three weeks of relentless media bashing of Hillary Clinton that began with the Russert debate the first week of November.

South Carolina has been a forgone conclusion since the Oprah event. The only question was whether Edwards would still be around to split the white vote with Clinton. He was and tonights results were easily predictable along demographic lines:

African Americans to Obama
White women to Hillary
White males to Edwards

Clinton knew all this. That's why she wasn't even in the state all week, showing up just for two days to make sure Edwards didn't bump her out of second place.

The nomination now comes down to white voters. Obama will get 80% of the African American vote in every state from here on out. Clinton will get a similar percentage of Latino/a and Asian American voters.

LeChuck,
Hillary's support for driver's licenses may also have contributed. I think that happened around Oct 17. But Obama was already closing the funding gap by then, so I think the momentum really switched before that.

BTW, we've now seen largely the same demographic splits (Latino/a, African American, and white) in three consecutive primaries: Michigan, Nevada, and South Carolina. In all three cases, the outcome as determined by the relative proportion of each group in the state. Of course, there were no demographic splits in Iowa and NH, since both are essentally all white states.

Good speech, very satisfying victory. I hope that Matthew, Pacc, TexModDem and all of the others who insisted that this would be a 1) narrow victory and 2) a blowout among white voters were paying attention. The white vote was only slightly different than a three-way split. Meanwhile, Obama's margin of victory here was huge. This draws attention to two points: 1) contrary to the desired meme that some of the Clinton folks have been trying to push, Obama has not noticably alienated white democratic supporters in the process of appealing to blacks. 2) Clinton (and I mean Bill more than Hillary) has alienated black voters. Can Clinton win in the fall if black democrats in Michigan, Ohio and Pennsylvania stay home?

Meanwhile, I rather wonder that anon at 0h14 can see to type, with the flecks of foamy spittle that must be covering his screen at the moment.

Obama has not noticably alienated white democratic supporters in the process of appealing to blacks.

That remains to be seen. 76% of the white voters in South Carolina voted against Obama. Clinton and Edwards both beat him by double digits among white voters.

Please, hwc...

and what... 61% of white voters voted against CLinton too.

Gimme a break.

He outperformed - by a large margin - his pre-election support among white voters.

He outright WON white voters under 30 - pulled more than 50% in fact.

There's no good news here for HRC. No silver linings.

You got whooped.

Get over it.

Thank you, Barack. And anon? He still wins by 10% if each and every Edwards voter went (insane) and voted for Hillary. So write less and dream more.

Zoak:

I'm not whining about the whoopin'. Obama notched a solid win in South Carolina on the strength of overwhelming support from his base. All the credit to him.

To be clear, anon, I have nothing against Edwards. Just pointing out that this was a huge win for Obama, no matter how it's sliced. I don't know what impact it will have on the other states and am not imagining that it will be easy for Obama to beat the biggest name in Democratic politics. But I don't think the win tonight can be explained away so easily as "Edwards and Clinton split the whites, Obama won the blacks." As people have pointed out, Obama actually won among young whites and tied Hillary among white men.

Nonetheless, I appreciate your high-minded, civil discourse.

It's hardly surprising that Obama won by a great margin when, as I gather, 53% of the voters were black and 81% of them voted for Obama. Do the math: that gave him 43% of his 55% vote. Only 12% came from whites.

If SC were in its demographics like the rest of the country, that would be bad news for Clinton. But obviously, take the same winning percentages within racial groups nationwide, adjust for the actual percentages of those groups within states, and Obama loses big time in just about every state in America.

Really, it's a Pyrrhic victory for Obama.

And it's probably even worse than that, because the nature of his win only heightens the perception that he is a candidate whose primary interest is to other African-Americans. I think others will have the doubt, what's in it for me to have such a President? Why think he's going to pay attention to my own interests?

Of course, Obama has no one to blame but himself for this perception. His campaign was caught red-handed with a memo that was obviously trying to inflame racial resentments in SC. Yes, it got him the African-American vote, just as he might have hoped. But most whites clearly seemed to perceive that the accusations of racism against the Clintons were not fair, and very few lined up behind Obama. I don't see any reason that the same perception won't go nationwide.

I see the Hillary racists are out tonight. Dixicrats still around found somewhere in New England? Stop projecting YOUR racism onto others. Your day is over.

The irony of Obama's big winning percentage is that it would probably have been a far more valuable victory had he won by much less, but the percentage of blacks who voted for him were far less, and the percentage of whites who voted for him just a trifle more.

That, you see, would have been a victory he could build on, and claim as a model for success nationwide.

As it is, all he can do is trumpet the big numbers and hope no one pays attention to the breakdown. But no one is going to do that. It's just too glaring a fact that he got 81% of the black vote, and such an unimpressive percentage of the white vote.

As I said, it's a Pyrrhic victory.

All you prominent bloggers and your insistence to stay on the sidelines in the primary create an enormous gulf between your dispassionate analysis and what is really happening with voters. The fact that I am over-the-top pissed off at the Clintons (as a previously ardent supporter, though not in this campaign) means that many others are as well. If you stuck your neck out and actually cared about the outcome of this primary, you might understand better what it's like out here.

HillBilly, I take serious exception to your claim of racism.

But don't you see? That's what the Obama side does, from the campaign on down. Even Obama himself feeds it on occasion, if far more discreetly (see his remark about Hillary's comment on MLK).

You take away their ability to call racism whenever and whereever they want, regardless of how groundless such a claim might be, and they hardly have a game left to play.

As I said, it won them big in SC. It will likely make them lose just about everywhere else in the nation.

Go Barak!
Change is needed badly.

It's sad how all of the Billary supporters pile on with their negativity. "Birds of a feather flock together." Negatively oriented people seem to like negatively oriented politicians.

Barak is inspirational. He's genuine. He is focused and hasn't continually changed his message based on polling data.

Barak *does* remind me of JFK. We need a leader who'll heal our nation now. He's the man!

And yes, I did vote for Bill Clinton both times. But Hillary won't get my vote in the CA primary, and she won't get it against McCain either (God forbid) should that be the choice this fall.

Let's hope the rest of the nation wakes up.

Great result today.

Oh and frankly0? Obama won across demographic lines and picked up over 20% of the white vote.

Oh and lucy, he lost the white vote, big time --- by over 10% -- to both Clinton and Edwards.

I'm sorry, but what does it mean to say in that context that Obama "won across demographic lines"? Yes, he may have won women, as a whole, but when you break it down by race, he lost white women in a major way to Hillary.

I'm sorry, but facts are facts. Obama simply lost the white vote and won the black vote in an overwhelming fashion. That's the basic story here.

As I said, given that his campaign deliberately went about inflaming racial resentments, it is hardly a surprise it worked out that way.

He won his Pyrrhic victory. Now is very likely to lose the war.

He won his Pyrrhic victory. Now is very likely to lose the war.

You wrote "Pyrrhic victory" 3 times! Are they paying you by the word?

Two more things on Obama's exceptional communications skills and brains:

1. Not only was he President of Harvard Law Review -- the most respected and competitive post in all of law student-dom -- but his student evaluation scores as a professor of U of C were second on an all-star faculty of some of the best professors in the country.

2. The guy is spellbinding in small group settings, far from any teleprompter.

His sheer talent is yet another reason to vote for him -- he will take blows and come back stronger. Never seen someone with such promise in 30 years of following politics.

I realize that I'm responding to a debate way upthread, but:

A) Words are important. FDR's words were important and are revered today. "Fear itself," "A day that shall live in infamy," the fireside chats, etc.

B) FDR read his speeches. No one today criticizes him for reading from sheets of paper. Dig?

C) Intent is prelude to action.

As for Obama's speech, he demonstrated a renewed focus on the seriousness of this campaign... what's at stake, and what we stand to achieve, if we have the will; and acknowledging that there will be setbacks, as there always are. Good, good stuff, and very inspiring.

OK, my last post actually wasn't in response to Mike H.

Meanwhile, interested repub, besides charmingly referring to our frontrunners as Mr. Obama and Ms. Clinton, made a very good point about white Southern Democrats. George Bush beat John Kerry in South Carolina 58% to 40.9% in 2004. I wonder what the breakdown was there.

Thanks Repub! I would be delighted if we could get to a contest between different visions. And I hope you'll give Obama credit for having a little bit of Edmund Burke in him.

--

just a few links as we close up for the night.

Essential reading:
http://ruralvotes.com/thefield/

Dick Morris explains race-baiting:
http://www.nypost.com/seven/01222008/news/columnists/theres_a_method_to_crafty_bills_madness_36682.htm?page=0
(This one is useful because Clinton supporters like to conflate race-baiting with crude racism, and then get all huffy and say how dare you call the sainted Clintons racist. But race-baiting is *not* simple racism. It's a sophisticated strategy of trying to maneuver someone who looks black into looking like a candidate of narrow black interests. Once they saw they were gonna lose SC, it was in the Clintons' interest the run up the black vote against them to add to that appearance. You can see the usual Clinton apparatchiks here dutifully repeating the same point, as though Iowa hadn't happened.

http://www.time-blog.com/swampland/2008/01/tonight_in_south_carolina.html

And Lucy, yeah, I've done that a couple times. Made me feel a lot better. You just surf over to the Obama 08 site with a credit card and you're done in 5 minutes.

Anyone care to take a guess at which of the three candidates DIDN'T thank the voters of South Carolina on their website?

dcshungu,

If you aren't convinced by Bill's wildly out of context Jesse Jackson reply to the 2-on-1 question that SC was intentionally polarized by the Clintons then nothing will--so I won't try and convince you further. Don't blame black voters if they happen to see that for what it is.

The Clinton campaign planted the seed well-ahead of time that Obama's victory was race-based and if the backlash in SC among whites was 36-24 in favor of Hillary then I don't imagine it will be worse in other regions--more likely he gets white numbers approaching his Iowa performance. I don't imagine whites in SC are typical of whites in CA.

Don't discount the home-field advantage of Edwards among white men. If he's not in the race Obama may have picked up a majority of white men and closed the overall white gap. I'll acknowledge I'm biased for Obama but if you're not FOR Clinton at this point are you EVER GOING TO BE? Mabye some but I'm thinking most fall into the "anybody but Clinton" category. I'd like to think the incumbent rule applies to her but that's probably just wishful thinking.

Obama is the same guy he was in Iowa. He didn't want to be the black candidate. They tried to paint him that way and some of it probably stuck, especially in a state like SC. But to the extent he was damaged it's certainly not permanent at. Ten days is a long time for new narratives to emerge. Clinton is institutionally strong. But really, without the name and the power behind her she is a weak candidate. The longer Obama stays in this the more I like his chances. Clinton is the kind of candidate who wears on people over time. The contrast with Obama is very favorable.

I was an Edwards-leaning fence-sitter who was initially put off by the vaguely conciliatory language uses towards Republicans ("Reagan had ideas" isn't so controversial to me as long as you don't characterize those ideas as good ones). I got over it because he's not speaking to political junkies. Obama is just better for the party and the country: he has coattails and there's no dynasty baggage.

Yeah, it makes it hard to understand how oblivious Aravosis has to be to show a graph with a hockey stick in early December and ignore the Oprah weekend.

That aside, Obama got 25% of the non-black 30-59 vote and 15% of the non-black 60+ vote. What Edwards does will make some difference on Feb 5, but it's hard to see that Obama's making the inroads into the non-youth white vote that he needs nationally.

JohnSFL wrote on January 27, 2008 4:48 AM:

dcshungu,

If you aren't convinced by Bill's wildly out of context Jesse Jackson reply to the 2-on-1 question that SC was intentionally polarized by the Clintons then nothing will--so I won't try and convince you further. Don't blame black voters if they happen to see that for what it is.

The Clinton campaign planted the seed well-ahead of time that Obama's victory was race-based and if the backlash in SC among whites was 36-24 in favor of Hillary then I don't imagine it will be worse in other regions--more likely he gets white numbers approaching his Iowa performance. I don't imagine whites in SC are typical of whites in CA.

A cooler head at the Politico saw things in the right light, IMHO. The chattering classes are going to go on over-drive touting a totally predictable Obama victory and then, like NH, be shocked when on Super-Tuesday, none of his purported strength in SC is on display and he get crushed:

"There is no mistaking, however, that just as Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton of New York could not have won New Hampshire or Nevada without the overwhelming support of white women, Obama could not have won South Carolina without the overwhelming support of blacks. He won the same percentage of African-Americans that he did in Nevada last week. But blacks cast 15 percent of the votes in Nevada — and more than half of the votes in South Carolina. That white voters split between the three leading Democratic candidates made the black vote especially consequential." [...] In Nevada a week ago, Clinton and Obama split voters who prioritized the economy and Iraq; Clinton won those who said health care. In South Carolina, Obama won on all three issues by 20 to 30 points. Regardless of how the electorate is cut, South Carolina was a story of race. As recently as early December, Clinton was competing for the black vote.

They played the race card and it worked, but I think that it might have worked too well... We'll see.

Going back to Anon's comments above; do you really believe that in the absence of Edwards that the white males who voted for Edwards would have voted for Clinton? Believe me, any of that group who just couldn't bring themselves to vote for that black man also wouldn't be voting for that white woman. I suspect it would have been more like 1/3 splitting between Barak and Hillary, 1/3 voting Barak as an ABC vote, and 1/3 skipping the vote.

Jay wrote on January 27, 2008 8:27 AM:

"They played the race card and it worked, but I think that it might have worked too well... We'll see."

What a load of crap, I knew that today you'd see Hilary supporters incoherent spinning like alcoholic ballerinas - its sad really. Outside of the fact the Clinton's played the race card, Obama getting 25% of the white vote completely sodomizes(without the complimentary reach around I may add) any notion that this is a tainted victory. Oh, by the well, what in the fuck does "it might have worked too well" mean? - what a watery sack of nonsensical crap that is..lol

I understand that you are giddy after losing 2 contests in row before winning in SC -- a totally predictable victory -- but please use your head before you use phrases such as "load of crap" or "incoherent spinning." You come off sounding stupid to some of us who actually do try to inform ourselves before posting on a public forum. Before you get totally carried away, please consider the demographics that Obama and Clinton carried in Nevada and let your calmer self return.

NEVADA DEMOCRATIC CAUCUSES

Two-thirds of caucus-goers were white and Clinton won then by 52 percent to 34 percent for Obama. Fifteen percent were black and Obama won 83 percent of them. A similar proportion were Hispanic and they went more than 2-to-1 for Clinton, although the survey could not cover nine at-large voting precincts at casinos on the Las Vegas strip — sites expected to include many Hispanics among culinary union workers.

Women comprised 59 percent of caucus-goers and they went 51-38 for Clinton, while men split pretty evenly between her and Obama. That was more like the results in the New Hampshire primary than the Iowa caucuses, which Obama won by narrowly defeating Clinton among women.

Black women — choosing between voting for a black man or a white woman — supported Obama as overwhelmingly as black men did.

virtually no differences in the make up of his winning coalition in SC and his losing coalition in NV. He had, in fact, won a larger share of the white vote in NV (34%) than he did in SC. But his support among blacks was about the same in both states (~80%). The difference was that NV had only 15% blacks, whereas in SC, black turnout was more than 50% of total. You will not see the type of analysis that I just provided here widely disseminated in the press because Obama is their boy so they'll be amazed that he won by such and such margin, but there is nothing about his win yesterday, other generating positive coverage, that changes the underlying dynamics. It is still an upward battle for Obama, and it might have gotten harder because in some quarters now, he will be perceived as the "black candidate"...

You can spin things any way you'd like, it won't change the fact that Obama won because SC blacks who made up more than 50% of the electorate voted as a bloc, which is not likely to be meaningful in most Super Tuesday states except for GA.

Exit poll data:

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

Looks like it's platitudes from here on out. Yes we can.

..but the problem is SC is a entirely different context, and after the racial discussion over the last week - Obama was supposed to only get 10% of the white vote. Despite all of that, he got 25% of the white vote - so as much as you clumsily contrast these numbers with the NV numbers - and unconvincingly try to "calm me down" while you are the only one looking desperate here - you can't argue with the SC numbers.

Too much kool-aid is bad for you. Those same polls that showed Obama getting as as low as 10% (some had him higher) did not show Obama getting 80+% of the black vote either. So what is your point? You'd be better off discussing and comparing actual results than ranting about pre-contest polls, which have been all over the place, if not outright wrong!

SC is NV redux, except for the black vote. The numbers are plain about that. Obama will have a harder time winning in states without a large black vote, unless he exceeds his ceiling of about ~35% white vote. Use your common sense and not your kool-aid drinking head.

Big news: Ted Kennedy to endorse Barack Obama.

"Too much kool-aid is bad for you."

Same stale regurgitated quips from a spinning top - standard.

"Those same polls that showed Obama getting as as low as 10% (some had him higher) did not show Obama getting 80+% of the black vote either."

But to compare SC to NV is nonsensical hackery of the highest order - but specifically, getting 25%of the white vote, after the past two weeks, is huge.

"Obama will have a harder time winning in states without a large black vote"

Like Iowa? Come on, you're looking silly now.

Where'd you hear that bill?

Thanks Bee, the world definitely needs obama.

It's kind of sad but I really have to fish around for gd information. A couple of points, at this point it appears that primary polls are pretty meaningless one way or the other. Every poll, except the desmoine register poll has been way, way off. I think it has alot to do with the polls not being able to deal with record turnouts and I bet they marginalize the youth vote, which obama has mobilized in droves. Every state has been a record, and its not been by a little, but nearly double the prior record. Basically polls are pretty useless.

Also, florida is having a record turnout for the dems. Early voting is nearly 3 times what it was in 04. What does that mean? Who knows? But I am willing to bet a lunch based on the track record of the polls that the polls showing clinton with a huge lead are wrong. Wouldn't it be a laugh if she got smacked in florida after her sleazy comments this week.

Last point, the right-wing media got the race baiting all wrong again. I heard time and again that it was deployed by the clintons post new hampshire. Duh, it was before new hampshire, the clintons are definitely not stupid. They played it pre-new hampshire along with the emotional stuff to eek out a win. I am sure the plan was to kiss and make up before sc, but the backlash was much bigger than I think they even imagined. So, they changed the game plan to try to marginalize sc and obama as the new jesse jackson. Will it work? I hope not and based on obama getting 25% of the white vote in sc, I bet it won't.

The Fall of the House of Clinton is the quivering stutter you are hearing now, among the Hill-bots.

Keep pouring that warm milk over the self-inflicted wounds, Hill-bots. It's not gonna help you.

Nothing less than an earthquake is now unfolding inside the DEM party.

Bill's final admission yesterday that he has indeed been playing the race card all along was the game-changer.

dcs
Pleas take your Hill Shilling and racism to a more appropriate website.
I recommend:
hillaryis44.org or
taylormarsh.com

You will be at home there

Does anyone actually have numbers for Jackson's wins here in the past? I see folks dismissing Obama's victory as nothing more than Jackson achieved, but is that true? Did Jackson really win more than twice as much of the vote as his nearest rivals? I do not remember figures from back then and do not know where to look for them.

Mickey points out that Jackson got a mere 5 - 10 percent of the white vote in South Carolina to Obama's 25 percent or so.
http://www.slate.com/id/2182569/

"What exactly does that mean? Obama got 34% of the white vote and 83% of the black vote in NV and lost, but gets 25% (or less) of the white vote and 80+% of the black vote in SC and wins"

What about both of the states being two completely different animals do you not understand? Just humor me for a minute and try not to come across like you are the product of inbreeding for. For him to get 25%of the vote, in the south, is huge - so comparing it to NV just exposes an ignorance that apparently knows no bounds.

"It is NOT an indication of his strength nationwide."

I would contend that Obama only being 3 percentage points behind nationally would point to said strength.

"I do not think that you are equipped with the analytical brain power to argue with."

..this coming from someone who incoherently compared NV and SC like it means anything - I've heard more fluid arguments from retarded stroke victims. So save the abysmal "brain power" quips that unsuccessfully mask your political ignorance.

Michael,

Without drooling all over yourself, tell me...What are Obama's plans for getting us out of Iraq? And please be specific.

At the risk of getting a rhetorical dart thrown at me, from my disinterested perspective, I'll hazard one more thought. The Barack Obama--Jesse Jackson comparisons are inapposite for two reasons. First, Barack Obama is a serious candidate in the eyes of all Americans. Jesse Jackson was serious only to his followers and to a certain, small slice of the larger Democratic party. Most others at the time (mainstream Democrats, Republicans and Independents) did not take his candidacy seriously. We take Mr. Obama's campaign very seriously.

Second, in each of the two elections mentioned that Mr. Jackson won, there was not really a strong alternative candidate at the time he won. Indeed, many of the votes for Mr. Jackson in those races were as much votes against others as they were for Mr. Jackson. I seriously doubt anybody who votes for Mr. Obama is really voting against somebody else.

So, I'm not sure anybody at this point is in a position to say exactly how the rest of this nominating process will turn out. The only lesson we have learned thus far is that it's hard to make predictions based on the past. Polling models are based on the past. However, there are not any models around currently that can accurately predict the outcome here because there has never been a nominating process with these particular factors.

Finally, no matter who wins, one of the two major parties in this country will nominate either an African American or a woman to run for the presidency this year. Whatever else occurs, that is terrific and, in my mind, constitutes forward progress.

loki

Pleas look up racebaiting and dog whistle politics. Bill is from the South and knows exactly how to do it. He is just assuming that African Americans will have no choice but to return to Hillary..

Sorry
Like I said take your racism to Hillary's site and let decent Democrtas discuss issues.

Hi loki, I'm having trouble wading through the drool. In the interim can you please tell me the wonderful legislative accomplishments of the clintons first two terms in office. I said legislative, I do not care about balancing the budget or the economy. Please be specific. Thanks.

anon wrote on January 27, 2008 12:14 AM: I hope the Obamaites recognize that the only reason Obama walked away looking like a great victor was because of John Edwards.

I hope Hillites recognize that the only reason Obama walked away with ONLY 55% was that 18% voted for Edwards.

I am an Edwards supporter. I will work hard in my State's Nov. 5th caucus to support Edwards... But, should Edwards not reach the 15% threshold in my precinct, I will fully support Obama!

Anybody who has seen Obama in a townhall setting knows that's when he's at his best. The guy is an even bigger policy wonk than Bill Clinton and loves nothing better than to answer tough questions from voters to not only show of his big brain but win them over. Anybody who compares him to Bush is just showing their own lack of knowledge about him.

Jay wrote on January 27, 2008 10:37 AM:

What about both of the states being two completely different animals do you not understand? Just humor me for a minute and try not to come across like you are the product of inbreeding for. For him to get 25%of the vote, in the south, is huge - so comparing it to NV just exposes an ignorance that apparently knows no bounds.

Like I said, you do not have the analytical brain power: First you just engaged in what is known as the "soft bigotry of low expectation", which has been Obama's free ticket in this race so far. Obama is a black man who has exceeded the white MSM's low expectations about what a black man can achieve, so they have given him a pass on obvious aspects of his thin political resume and connections (Rezko) about which any other candidate would have been vigorously scrutinized. Here is what you just said: Obama is black and thus was expected do to badly in SC. Because he exceeded that low expectation, his win there should mean more than it actually does. Jesse Jackson won there, maybe not as impressively as Obama, but then again, Jackson did not have the appeal that Obama has, which explains his impressive win. But you missed the basic point: Just like in NV, where despite getting a healthy share of the white vote and virtually all of the black vote Obama lost, he will not win unless he can attract a larger share of the white vote as, considering the similarities in the proportions of the demographics that he attracted in NV and SC, he'll have a hard time winning elsewhere. In terms of racial make up, NV is more like the country than SC is. You are saying that Obama exceeded the expectations in SC and won a large white vote [injecting racism], but I am saying that even without racism, Obama simply must increase his share of the white vote to remain competitive. SC is a bad case to use to argue his competitiveness, because SC is not like the rest of America.

Got it now?

So, being married to a former President, and using that as your only entry point into national politics does not qualify as "soft bigotry of low expectations" in your book!

Senator Obama got elected to the US Senate from a large , mostly white state, and he did not have a more famous spouse to use as a launch ramp. Hillary did. If she were not married to Bimbo Bill, she would not have been able to win an election for local dog catcher.

Talk about your soft bigotry of low expectations; it does not get any lower than voting for a woman to be President just because she is married to the guy who reached out to every Bimbo within grabbing distance to avoid any intimacy with Hands off Hillary.

Obama is a self made person, Hillary is not.

Response to what, Lucy?

To Interested Repub at 10:44.

"Like I said, you do not have the analytical brain power"

..which is laughable, coming from a proven mental midget who can't even push out a coherent argument. But I digress..

"so they have given him a pass on obvious aspects of his thin political resume and connections (Rezko)"

*non-scandals of the whitewater variety alert* Ok, lets proceed.

Obama is black and thus was expected do to badly in SC."

No one expected him to do badly..

"Because he exceeded that low expectation, his win there should mean more than it actually does."

He exceeding the expectations of what his white vote was supposed to be - he was always favored in the state as a whole.

"Just like in NV, where despite getting a healthy share of the white vote and virtually all of the black vote Obama lost, he will not win unless he can attract a larger share of the white vote as"

That being said, as I've stated before in relation to SC's history of voting for black candidates - the 25% of the white vote that he received is huge. A point that makes the NV comparison rather clumsy.

"You are saying that Obama exceeded the expectations in SC and won a large white vote [injecting racism]"

No one "injected racism", if someone states that a candidate won more of the male vote they aren't invoking sexism. Now that I've mercilessly backhanded that..

"SC is a bad case to use to argue his competitiveness, because SC is not like the rest of America."

Obama's national polling would prove you wrong.

"Got it now?"

You're assuming that your response was something resembling credible - hardly, since you have a Barney Fife approach to politics.

Liam wrote on January 27, 2008 11:44 AM:

So, being married to a former President, and using that as your only entry point into national politics does not qualify as "soft bigotry of low expectations" in your book!

It does not simply because it is stupid. Hillary ran for the NY US Senate seat and won twice, the second time (i.e., after the people of NY had a chance to judge her on her record after 6 years) overwhelmingly.

loki wrote on January 27, 2008 10:43 AM: Michael,

Without drooling all over yourself, tell me...What are Obama's plans for getting us out of Iraq? And please be specific.

Gee Loki, although it was virtually impossible to dig up, I did manage to find his plan for getting us out of Iraq on, of all places, his website. It was sneakily hidden under the "Issues" button under topic "Iraq."

http://www.barackobama.com/issues/pdf/IraqFactSheet.pdf

Hi loki, still wading in the droll, but I see several other posters responded to your question. In any event, any answer to my question? Nothing, as expected. Well done.

Cheers

Michael,

I asked you a question, You refused to answer my question. In your absence someone else stepped up. When I ask a question of someone and they only answer with another question it is clear they are uninterested in engaging...or unable to. (which is most likely in your case)

Your cowardice is exceeded only by your naive, fawning, infantile hero-worship. Oh... and your rank sexism, can't forget about that.

Chump.

loki wrote on January 27, 2008 10:12 AM:
"If SC is any indication...Hillary stands to win the nomination and by pretty decent numbers. Human nature will most likely win out. Any attack on Obama will be perceived as racial, attacks on Clinton will be misogynistic. The numbers say Clinton wins when this happens."

AND

loki wrote on January 27, 2008 10:37 AM:
"Sorry "tym"...it is understandable you'd prefer not to be challenged but the adults will remain here...if for no other reason than to state it plainly. Criticising a black person is no more racist than criticising a woman is misogynisitc. It is the Obama supporters that are doing the race baiting. You probably should stop it, too. It does nothing for your credibility."

Loki, do you see the logical disconnect here between your two statements? Everyone knows that the race issue is a negative for Obama, including Obama. He didn't need race-baiting to win S.C. So, why would he stoke the race-flames? As you yourself pointed out, HRC wins more when attacks are percieved as misogynistic, as compared to attacks on Obama being perceived as racial. So, it makes little sense when you go on to imply that the Obama folks are the source of the race baiting.

But, it does make sense that Bill Clinton just pointed out yesterday, after the loss, that it was Jesse Jackson who won S.C. twice. What was the point of that statement? To tie-in the race issue, again. I'm not saying the Clintons are racists, but it is clear that they're slyly sneaking in little quips and comments which only serve as not-so-subtle reminders that, yes, Obama is a black candidate. And, they understand that some Obama supporters, having lived with racism all their lives, have a short fuse, and the Sharptons out there jump on anything. So, while some - not all - of Obama's supporters jump the gun on the issue (as the Clintons anticipated) Obama and his campaign leaders keep trying to lower the tensions.

I'm not issuing a complaint; this is normal politics, as expected. I'm just pointing out that the implications of your statements contradict each other.

Wow, the Hillary-Hamsters sure are nasty.

Here's the thing, you all "whine", about the easy treatment O.B. gets via the media, but you miss something completely: this is exactly what makes him more electable than Hillary.

He has that undefinable quality that makes people believe in him and see him as a leader. Those people include the media.

This thing is called political talent.

It is almost as if Billary fell into Obama's trap when the went nuclear on them.

The Clintons can't Rezko him, its simply not going to work. It is only going to blow back on them and highlight their own negatives.

There were plenty of fence sitters who were really inspired by Obama, but were not sure that he was ready; and they were more than open to Hillary's experience argument.

Again, lets repeat that: there were plenty of fence sitters who were really inspired by Obama, but were not sure that he was ready; and they were more than open to Hillary's experience argument.

Those fence sitters are now falling of the rails all over Obama (lesson: dont try to destroy someone who people find inspiring, they will certainly turn on you).

texasdem - Yes... absolutely correct. But that doesn't stop Bill from making the implication that it was the same, does it?

Jon wrote on January 27, 2008 2:30 PM:

Wow, the Hillary-Hamsters sure are nasty.

Here's the thing, you all "whine", about the easy treatment O.B. gets via the media, but you miss something completely: this is exactly what makes him more electable than Hillary.

He has that undefinable quality that makes people believe in him and see him as a leader. Those people include the media.

LOL. Yet another kool-aid drinker. No, it not called "leadership" and the GOP smear machine will give it another name, which would be equivalent to "soft bigotry of low expectations". Can you imagine a first-term WHITE Senator from Illinois with a resume and record as thin as Obama's getting as much attention as Obama has, even if he were just as "articulate"? Nah, he would have been laughed off the stage months ago. But Obama, having exceeded the low expectations of the white MSM, has been elevated to the level of the "untouchable messiah." Can you imagine if one Tony Rezko were an architect of Hillary's political career and then were indicted, and the MSM just giving Hillary a pass on it? Unfathomable.

We are just grooming Obama to be the first Dem candidate in 40 years to lose the GE by a landslide because we are trying to protect him from himself since he is not capable of it...We'll whine if his thin record is challenged, and we'll invoke the dreaded "r" word if we refer to MLK or say "fairy tale." The GOP machine is just being trained to recognize the weaknesses. It will be ready...you can count it.

Still no answer loki? Oh, by the way, thanks for the compliments. I appreciate it. Basically, they confirm that you have no answer.

On the sexism issue, I suggest that you look in the mirror. Your posts and comments evidence rank sexism. It's called projection, in case you didn't know the clinical term.

One candidate for the explanation is the fallout from Clinton's Iran vote (Kyl-Lieberman amendment).

Clinton voted for it in late September, and by mid-October she was doing a mailing to explain it in Iowa. Biden said it was unconscionable or something like that. Gravel pointed his bony finger at her in one of the debates and called her out on it.

That vote was a reminder of what we didn't like about her Iraq vote, and an indication that The Lady is a Hawk. Her meltdown in New Hampton was prompted by a guy who asked about that vote. I'm sure there were other factors, but that one stands out for me.

And, hmmmm, WHITE Senator with a thin record, who became president . . . ummmmm, let me think, nope cant think of anyone . . . oh yeah! that guy whose daughter and brother just endorsed Obama, yeah that one, what was his name again?

Where is Lloyd Bentsen when you need him! But I believe that the following would blow any notion that Obama is like JFK out of the water:
Ask Not! Why Obama is No JFK
By Ted Widmer.

Speaking of Kennedy endorsements, Kathleen Kennedy Townsend along with her brother and sister just endorsed Hillary, which should help with women voters (I am not sure how valuable Teddy's endorsement of Obama is, except with very liberal voters):

1/27/2008 Statement from Kathleen Kennedy Townsend

"I respect Caroline and Teddy's decision but I have made a different choice. While I admire Senator Obama greatly, I have known Hillary Clinton for over 25 years and have seen first hand how she gets results. As a woman, leader, and person of deep convictions, I believe Hillary Clinton would make the best possible choice for president. She shares so many of the concerns of my father. Hillary has spent a lifetime speaking out on behalf of the powerless and working to alleviate poverty, in our country and around the world. I have seen her work up close and know she will be a great President. At this moment when so much is at stake at home and overseas, I urge our fellow Americans to support Hillary Clinton. That is why my brother Bobby, my sister Kerry, and I are supporting Hillary Clinton."

Now you see how "polarizing" Hillary is? She just split even the Kennedy family! LOL.

*Balance* ... nice. Jack, Bobby, Teddy ... and that's a wrap.

So, let's get our act together for this road trip... do the needful. Be accountable for issues and impact.

EVERYONE needs to pull up their socks and get back to the business at hand.

My father-in-law, a quintessential Yankee who for that past 7 years liked 'W's' 'swagger... and 'he's a nice guy'... told us today that he's really liking Hillary... she's tough & smart. To call this amazing is an understatement. He was never a fan of Bill's ('that guy') although he did appreciate the economy under that administration. Getting comfortable w/voting Democrat... wow.

Stranger things have happened... Died-in-the-wool Republicans want a 'real change' and may feel comfortable enough to swing towards the middle... beyond? We'll see.

Personally, I would like to suggest to this group an old axiom used by a sportscaster regarding 'bad behavior' by hockey players... "Drop your gloves and you're out of the game.'

And the beat goes on ;-) *Cheers!*

Obama supported the incumbent Democratic Senator in the CT Democratic primary contest, along with Bill and Hillary Clinton (and Dodd, Biden, etc.):

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Endorsements_for_Joe_Lieberman_in_the_2006_Connecticut_Senate_Race

Then Obama supported Lamont as the Democratic nominee against Lieberman in the general election. And Lamont has endorsed Obama.