2008 South Carolina Results
posted by on January 26 at 15:47 PM
Live from Mexico. Results coming soon…
In the meantime, Ambinder has these tea leaves:
**Clinton’s en route to Tennessee…. **Cable nets know who won and by how much …can barely contain the news… **ABC News: More than half of voters in SC are black… Early exit polls analyzed by CBS News show that the economy was the major issue for more than half of voters….. **57% say Bill Clinton’s campaigning was important in determining their vote **53% of voters wanted change, versus 24% who wanted a president who cared about them, versus 14% who wanted a president with experience ** Independents about 23% of the electorate
UPDATE: And now, some leaked exit polling:
Per the network/AP early exit poll results:African-Americans: Obama 81%, Clinton 17%, Edwards 1%
African-American women: Obama 82%, Clinton 17%, Edwards 0%
Whites: Edwards 39%, Clinton 36%, Obama 24%
Edwards winning white men, Clinton white women.
UPDATE: Via The Caucus:
7 p.m. | Polls Close The polls just closed and CNN, the networks and the Associated Press call it instantly for Barack Obama.
UPDATE: MSNBC on the delegates at stake and the turnout:
South Carolina’s primary offered 45 Democratic National Convention delegates, as well as the campaign’s first indication of Obama’s political appeal in a state with a large black population.Interviews with voters as they left their polling places indicated about half the electorate was black…
Roughly half the voters said former President Clinton’s campaigning for his wife was very important to their choice.
Which suggests that Bill Clinton’s South Carolina tactics backfired big-time.
UPDATE: And how does Bill Clinton spin this? Well, today he was pre-spinning it this way:
In a chat with reporters today in Columbia, Bill Clinton was asked what it said about Mr. Obama that it “took two people to beat him,” a reference to Mr. Clinton’s running with his wife.“That’s’ just bait, too,” Mr. Clinton said. “Jesse Jackson won South Carolina twice, in ‘84 and ‘88. And he ran a good campaign. Senator Obama’s run a good campaign here, he’s run a good campaign everywhere.”
This is being widely interpreted by TV pundits as further evidence that Mr. Clinton is trying to marginalize Mr. Obama’s win in South Carolina.
UPDATE: Via TPM:
Too close to call between Hillary and Edwards, CNN reports.That might explain why Hillary resorted to anti-Edwards robocalls at the last minute.
UPDATE: More on what voters thought of all the South Carolina attacks:
In the exit polls, we asked voters in this primary if the candidates were attacking each other unfairly. Fifty-six percent of those voting so far think Obama attacked Clinton unfairly, and while that is a high number, more people thought Clinton unfairly attacked Obama — 70%.
UPDATE: Obama will give a victory speech at 9 p.m. EST.
UPDATE: Clinton projected to get second place, with Edwards third.
UPDATE: Hillary Clinton puts out a statement, in which she looks ahead to Florida (a state whose delegates don’t count) and the Feb. 5 states.
I have called Senator Obama to congratulate him and wish him well.Thank you to the people of South Carolina who voted today and welcomed me into their homes over the last year. Your stories will stay with me well beyond this campaign and I am grateful for the support so many of you gave to me.
We now turn our attention to the millions of Americans who will make their voices heard in Florida and the twenty-two states as well as American Samoa who will vote on February 5th.
In the days ahead, I’ll work to give voice to those who are working harder than ever to be heard. For those who have lost their job or their home or their health care, I will focus on the solutions needed to move this country forward. That’s what this election is about. It’s about our country, our hopes and dreams. Our families and our future.
UPDATE: Is America ready for a black president? Some interesting findings from the exit polls:
7:58 p.m. | Is America Ready? More than half of black voters in S.C. consider the country definitely ready for a black president, while white voters are less sure. Only a about a quarter of white voters surveyed said the country is definitely ready for a black president and 45 percent said the country is probably ready, according to the exit polls.Here’s another interesting tidbit from the exit polls: Only about 40 percent of whites who said the country is definitely ready for a black president actually voted for Mr. Obama. What was going on with those other 60 percent? Some may think the country is ready for a black man but supported Mrs. Clinton or Mr. Edwards for other reasons, but some may have been afraid to tell pollsters that they did not think the country was ready. Either way, the Clinton and Edwards campaigns will be looking to those voters as we turn to Feb. 5.
UPDATE: John F. Kennedy’s daughter endorses Obama.
UPDATE: Obama is about to speak. I’m livestreaming it here.
UPDATE: Another powerful speech from Obama. He hit his themes of unity and hope, as usual, but he also hit the Clintons—hard.
After four great contests in every corner of this country, we have the most votes, the most delegates, and the most diverse coalition of Americans we’ve seen in a long, long time…But… Make no mistake about what we’re up against.
We are up against the belief that it’s ok for lobbyists to dominate our government - that they are just part of the system in Washington. But we know that the undue influence of lobbyists is part of the problem, and this election is our chance to say that we’re not going to let them stand in our way anymore.
We are up against the conventional thinking that says your ability to lead as President comes from longevity in Washington or proximity to the White House. But we know that real leadership is about candor, and judgment, and the ability to rally Americans from all walks of life around a common purpose - a higher purpose.
We are up against decades of bitter partisanship that cause politicians to demonize their opponents instead of coming together to make college affordable or energy cleaner; it’s the kind of partisanship where you’re not even allowed to say that a Republican had an idea - even if it’s one you never agreed with. That kind of politics is bad for our party, it’s bad for our country, and this is our chance to end it once and for all.
We are up against the idea that it’s acceptable to say anything and do anything to win an election. We know that this is exactly what’s wrong with our politics; this is why people don’t believe what their leaders say anymore; this is why they tune out. And this election is our chance to give the American people a reason to believe again.
That’s it for my blogging of these results. Obama’s full speech—well worth a read for its multiple digs at the Clintons and its attempt to create a South Carolina narrative that is not about race—is in the jump.
Over two weeks ago, we saw the people of Iowa proclaim that our time for change has come. But there were those who doubted this country's desire for something new - who said Iowa was a fluke not to be repeated again.Well, tonight, the cynics who believed that what began in the snows of Iowa was just an illusion were told a different story by the good people of South Carolina.
After four great contests in every corner of this country, we have the most votes, the most delegates, and the most diverse coalition of Americans we've seen in a long, long time.
They are young and old; rich and poor. They are black and white; Latino and Asian. They are Democrats from Des Moines and Independents from Concord; Republicans from rural Nevada and young people across this country who've never had a reason to participate until now. And in nine days, nearly half the nation will have the chance to join us in saying that we are tired of business-as-usual in Washington, we are hungry for change, and we are ready to believe again.
But if there's anything we've been reminded of since Iowa, it's that the kind of change we seek will not come easy. Partly because we have fine candidates in the field - fierce competitors, worthy of respect. And as contentious as this campaign may get, we have to remember that this is a contest for the Democratic nomination, and that all of us share an abiding desire to end the disastrous policies of the current administration.
But there are real differences between the candidates. We are looking for more than just a change of party in the White House. We're looking to fundamentally change the status quo in Washington - a status quo that extends beyond any particular party. And right now, that status quo is fighting back with everything it's got; with the same old tactics that divide and distract us from solving the problems people face, whether those problems are health care they can't afford or a mortgage they cannot pay.
So this will not be easy. Make no mistake about what we're up against.
We are up against the belief that it's ok for lobbyists to dominate our government - that they are just part of the system in Washington. But we know that the undue influence of lobbyists is part of the problem, and this election is our chance to say that we're not going to let them stand in our way anymore.
We are up against the conventional thinking that says your ability to lead as President comes from longevity in Washington or proximity to the White House. But we know that real leadership is about candor, and judgment, and the ability to rally Americans from all walks of life around a common purpose - a higher purpose.
We are up against decades of bitter partisanship that cause politicians to demonize their opponents instead of coming together to make college affordable or energy cleaner; it's the kind of partisanship where you're not even allowed to say that a Republican had an idea - even if it's one you never agreed with. That kind of politics is bad for our party, it's bad for our country, and this is our chance to end it once and for all.
We are up against the idea that it's acceptable to say anything and do anything to win an election. We know that this is exactly what's wrong with our politics; this is why people don't believe what their leaders say anymore; this is why they tune out. And this election is our chance to give the American people a reason to believe again.
And what we've seen in these last weeks is that we're also up against forces that are not the fault of any one campaign, but feed the habits that prevent us from being who we want to be as a nation. It's the politics that uses religion as a wedge, and patriotism as a bludgeon. A politics that tells us that we have to think, act, and even vote within the confines of the categories that supposedly define us. The assumption that young people are apathetic. The assumption that Republicans won't cross over. The assumption that the wealthy care nothing for the poor, and that the poor don't vote. The assumption that African-Americans can't support the white candidate; whites can't support the African-American candidate; blacks and Latinos can't come together.
But we are here tonight to say that this is not the America we believe in. I did not travel around this state over the last year and see a white South Carolina or a black South Carolina. I saw South Carolina. I saw crumbling schools that are stealing the future of black children and white children. I saw shuttered mills and homes for sale that once belonged to Americans from all walks of life, and men and women of every color and creed who serve together, and fight together, and bleed together under the same proud flag. I saw what America is, and I believe in what this country can be.
That is the country I see. That is the country you see. But now it is up to us to help the entire nation embrace this vision. Because in the end, we are not just up against the ingrained and destructive habits of Washington, we are also struggling against our own doubts, our own fears, and our own cynicism. The change we seek has always required great struggle and sacrifice. And so this is a battle in our own hearts and minds about what kind of country we want and how hard we're willing to work for it.
So let me remind you tonight that change will not be easy. That change will take time. There will be setbacks, and false starts, and sometimes we will make mistakes. But as hard as it may seem, we cannot lose hope. Because there are people all across this country who are counting us; who can't afford another four years without health care or good schools or decent wages because our leaders couldn't come together and get it done.
Theirs are the stories and voices we carry on from South Carolina.
The mother who can't get Medicaid to cover all the needs of her sick child - she needs us to pass a health care plan that cuts costs and makes health care available and affordable for every single American.
The teacher who works another shift at Dunkin Donuts after school just to make ends meet - she needs us to reform our education system so that she gets better pay, and more support, and her students get the resources they need to achieve their dreams.
The Maytag worker who is now competing with his own teenager for a $7-an-hour job at Wal-Mart because the factory he gave his life to shut its doors - he needs us to stop giving tax breaks to companies that ship our jobs overseas and start putting them in the pockets of working Americans who deserve it. And struggling homeowners. And seniors who should retire with dignity and respect.
The woman who told me that she hasn't been able to breathe since the day her nephew left for Iraq, or the soldier who doesn't know his child because he's on his third or fourth tour of duty - they need us to come together and put an end to a war that should've never been authorized and never been waged.
The choice in this election is not between regions or religions or genders. It's not about rich versus poor; young versus old; and it is not about black versus white.
It's about the past versus the future.
It's about whether we settle for the same divisions and distractions and drama that passes for politics today, or whether we reach for a politics of common sense, and innovation - a shared sacrifice and shared prosperity.
There are those who will continue to tell us we cannot do this. That we cannot have what we long for. That we are peddling false hopes.
But here's what I know. I know that when people say we can't overcome all the big money and influence in Washington, I think of the elderly woman who sent me a contribution the other day - an envelope that had a money order for $3.01 along with a verse of scripture tucked inside. So don't tell us change isn't possible.
When I hear the cynical talk that blacks and whites and Latinos can't join together and work together, I'm reminded of the Latino brothers and sisters I organized with, and stood with, and fought with side by side for jobs and justice on the streets of Chicago. So don't tell us change can't happen.
When I hear that we'll never overcome the racial divide in our politics, I think about that Republican woman who used to work for Strom Thurmond, who's now devoted to educating inner-city children and who went out onto the streets of South Carolina and knocked on doors for this campaign. Don't tell me we can't change.
Yes we can change.
Yes we can heal this nation.
Yes we can seize our future.
And as we leave this state with a new wind at our backs, and take this journey across the country we love with the message we've carried from the plains of Iowa to the hills of New Hampshire; from the Nevada desert to the South Carolina coast; the same message we had when we were up and when we were down - that out of many, we are one; that while we breathe, we hope; and where we are met with cynicism, and doubt, and those who tell us that we can't, we will respond with that timeless creed that sums up the spirit of a people in three simple words:
Yes. We. Can.
CNN calls it for Obama - 2min after the polls closed?
hooray
With zero ballots counted
I'm really not surprised at the results. I'm an African American who is from SC. I've been talking to my family all week, and they were telling me what they were hearing. To think that Obama got over 20% of the white vote in SC is, frankly, shocking. Now, I hope the campaigns move towards spirited discussions of the issues, and not attacks.
It will be interesting to see if Bill Clinton has the self-discipline to stay out of the proceedings for the next 10 days. The images of him ranting with his big red face and pointing finger have been deadly for Hillary. She seems like a shadow.
Suck on it Bill!
Since I don't have cable, I just went to the ABC News Live feed to try and get some coverage. They are showing an empty Edwards podium with some reporters hanging out and a guy in a purple monkey costume walking around. Arcade Fire's "Keep the Car Running" is playing. Wow...I really need to get cable.
AP headline on Yahoo News:
"Obama runs away with SC primary"
Is it a sign that I'm too pc or that I'm un-pc if I get an image of a black man running away from something after seeing that headline?
So white men voted for Edwards, white women voted for Clinton, and blacks voted for Obama. Wow! I'm utterly astonished.
@9, I know it's not surprising but it kinda bums me out that none of the candidates were able to really cross race and/or gender lines. I'm starting to get a little stressed out about the general....
I know, @10; it is depressing at some level.
So the people in SC want Obama. So what? So what? We all know that Clinton/Obama/Edwards are gunna stay in till the bitter end. Watch.
Tell Sen Clinton to put a muzzle on Bill Clinton and call off the attacks on other Dems - it not only is not working, it's hurting the eventual Democratic candidate at the November polls.
Oh, and even if my mom voted for someone other than Obama or Clinton, I have but on thing to say: Hooooah!
359 days till Bush sent to prison for his war crimes.
actually, I'm with Tony @4. If Obama ends up with over 20% of the white vote in SC, that's a minor miracle. The racism in that area of the south runs very deep.
Tony @4:
Obama only 12 points behind Clinton with the white vote in South Carolina, of all places! Shame on the Clintons for injecting race into this campaign. Well, it backfired. Obama continues to transcend race, even in a state that continues to fly the Confederate flag at its statehouse.
Speaking of shame...
Shame on the Clinton campaign for letting their backers try to disenfranchise voters in Nevada. That's changing the rules only after the game had started and they realized the rules might handicap them. (Turned out not to be the case actually.) Shame on the Clintons for then having the chutzpah to play the disenfranchisement card themselves.*
Shame on Hillary Clinton for trying to make Michigan and Florida count all of a sudden. Again, changing the rules only after the game had started and they realized they could gain an advantage.
An opinion piece in the LA Times sums up my feelings:
What's next? Will Hillary play the gender card again? Maybe she can pluck some vicious sexist troglodyte from obscurity the way Bill plucked Sister Soulja from obscurity years ago.
There is no depth to which these people will not stoop to hang on to power. I'm beginning to imagine what a Hillary presidency would be like. Imagine Richard Nixon married to King Lear.
* In fairness... The Obama campaign wasn't entirely innocent in all the Nevada nastiness. There was that Spanish language radio ad that accused Clinton backers of disrespecting "our people" for going to court to get the casino caususes stopped. They were disrespecting union workers (actually part of the Clinton base), but it's a leap to then say they were disrespecting Hispanics.
Agreed at 14 and 4. That area is super rascist. Its gross.
I think its interesting that Obama has still not been able to get the 40s-50s white vote. Those are the people that vote and come out to elections. The young vote is BS, since they are never the majority nor do they decide elections.
So while he can and should celebrate a big win, he is still not getting the main vote from the Dems.
How can one 'inject race' into any situation? Though I'm not entirely sure what exact actions the Clinton's are accused of having taken in order to 'inject race' into the primaries, I do believe everyone had a very defined skin color throughout, well, ever.
Original Monique @16 on Obama and white voters: So while he can and should celebrate a big win, he is still not getting the main vote from the Dems.
What in the hell are you talking about? Obama won the white vote in Iowa. If he didn't win it in NH and Nevada, he sure came close. And in every one of those three states, his strongest areas were rural, traditionally conservative areas. It's why Obama came away from the Nevada caucus with one more delegate than Clinton.
johnnie @17: How can one 'inject race' into any situation?
Hillary Clinton: "Dr. King's dream began to be realized when President Lyndon Johnson passed the Civil Rights Act of 1964. ... It took a president to get it done."
Hillary Clinton: "[Charlie Rangel] serves as chair of the most important committee in the United States Congress. He didn't get there by leapfrogging. He got there by lots of hard work."
Hillary Clinton is no ingenue. She's married to the most sophisticated Southern politician of our time, perhaps ever. She knows how to speak in the coded language of race. She wanted to drag Obama into a down-and-dirty squabble about race and gender. That's her home turf, not his.
Bob Herbert in today's NY Times:
Hey Eli, are those drinks "horchata" by any chance? Yum!
Does she mean the state where she vowed not to campaign? And whose delegates she now suddenly has an interest in seating?
And then there's her sudden interest in seeing the Michigan delegates seated. You know, the ones she won in a primary that didn't include her chief opponents on a ballot, because they chose to honor an agreement with her.
cressona, would HRC not be white and a women and rich had none of those statements never been made? Would BHO not be (half-) black and a man and rich had they not been made? Let's not pretend that race only plays a factor when it is emphasized; it's niave and stupid. Race, gender, class, religion, sexuality - hell, angles at which photos are taken - all of these things come in as major scheme, acknowledged or not, in molding one's reaction to another. Accuse HRC of race bating, highlighting race, politicizing race, overemphasis on race, whatever (I would disagree to all, really), if you want, but to say that race was absent, then injected, is, again, stupeed.
OK, so why do we see Bill Clinton giving a speech on CNN, instead of his wife?
tsm @21, if ripping apart the Democratic Party is the price to be paid for defeating Barack Obama, then the Clintons will gladly pay it. They've already tried to polarize this campaign along racial and gender lines. Why stop there?
More Jonathan Chait in the LA Times:
You ever try to imagine how the 2000s might have transpired if not for Bill Clinton's desire to get a blow job? Instead of electing a decent and visionary man president in 2000, we got one of the worst presidents in history, a president who could just as well have been a Manchurian candidate for the Chinese and the Saudis, not to mention the oil, defense, pharmaceutical, and brokerage industries.
What's happening now is a replay of what happened them. The Clintons are happy to put their self-interest ahead of the Democratic Party's interests, and ahead of our nation's interest. Finally now, I think we're all seeing who the Clintons really are. Finally, it's all kinda making sense. Character matters.
@Cressona:
I tried to send links for the age break-down at each state, but it was caught by the Stranger Spam filter.
If you go to CNN, and look at the exit polls at each state, Clinton wins the 40+ age group every time. In south carolina, Clinton and Edwards split the white 40+ age group, with Obama getting in the 20%
So yes, that is a big deal. That age group and category is what decides elections, and that is the group that votes in the biggest numbers. Obama needs to find a way to appeal to those voters if he is going to win the nomination or the general election.
And, gosh, why did Bill Clinton bring up Jesse Jackson when it had nothing to do with the question? I can't imagine.
I couldn't really care less on the color or age of voters.
Oh yeah... did you see the black box voting video from NH?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PKQEQ7qHvgM
Original Monique @25. I misread your earlier post and thought you were saying Obama needed to get 40-50 percent among whites. Not the 40s-50s age groups.
You're right that that older voters get, the more they skew to Clinton. Just like there's a bit of a gender gap so far. Obama needs to make some of that up in future primaries to win. Frankly, though, I don't see those concerns being so great in a general election. Unless of course John McCain decides to get a sex change.
P.S. John King of CNN reports... Obama 54% in South Carolina's richest county. Obama 60% (if I recall correctly) in South Carolina's poorest county. Quite a breadth of appeal.
I think this was still a win for the Clintons. They have successfully turned Obama into "the Black Candidate." It was shameful and shameless how they did it, but they did it nonetheless. Bill's remark about Jesse Jackson is the final nail in the cryptoracist sleaze coffin for Obama. Enjoy, Democrats, you just assured yourselves another Republican president. I'm really hoping it's McCain, because if it's any of the other Republicans, I'll have to leave the country. Maybe this entices Bloomberg to throw his hat in the ring, though.
With 55% of the vote in, Obama already has more votes than John McCain managed to get overall in the SC Republican primary...
Andy James @26: And, gosh, why did Bill Clinton bring up Jesse Jackson when it had nothing to do with the question? I can't imagine.
Maybe next the Clinton campaign will start airing subliminal messages in Super Tuesday states. "Barack Hussein Obama. Jesse Jackson. Barack Hussein Obama. Jesse Jackson. Barack Hussein Obama. Jesse Jackson."
Y'know, Toni Morrison called Bill Clinton our first black president. Accepting that premise, then this is the most pathetic case of turning one's back on one's blackness since Michael Jackson bleached his skin.
The McCain endorsement from Crist in Florida is big news.
I know that the conservatives don't like McCain, but the independents do. I will be very interested in the break down of Romney and McCain there.
And I believe that the Thompson voters will be going to Romney. Guiliani might be taking votes away from McCain. Damn it sucks I am going to be in Europe during super tuesday.
Where online can I see a running total of Democrat caucus voters and Republican caucus voters?
Also, once more Rep. Paul gets more votes than Rudolph Giuliani. When is Rudy going to pick up his 9/11 marbles and go home?
Clinton squeaked by Obama by 2-3 points in New Hampshire and Obama still won just as many delegates. Takeaway: huge win for Clinton.
Clinton edged by Obama by 6 points in Nevada and Obama still won more delegates. Takeaway: huge win for Clinton.
Now Obama is beating Clinton by 27 points, 2-1, in South Carolina. Now that is a huge win.
So how do the Clintons respond? Let's change the rules of the game and make Florida count. Let's dismiss Obama as just another Jesse Jackson.
Let's see what other Rove-ian tricks they come up with. Let's see the mailings. Let's hear the robocalls. Let's see the strong-arming.
John King on CNN: "The people rooting most for her right now, outside of camp Clinton? The Republicans."
Why is it exactly that people support the disenfranchisement of Floridians?
I give you Michigan because all the Dems weren't on the ballot. But I was pretty effin pissed at the DNC when they sanctioned Florida and Michigan in the first place. It's totaly bs and if I was a Floridian I'd be fighting like hell to get my delegates seated.
@32, Crist's endorsement (put together with the NYT scathing anti-endorsement of Rudy) is the final nail in that campaign's coffin. Too bad, I really hoped Rudy could pull out a FL win somehow, if only to prolong the clusterfuck in the GOP.
I think you're absolutely right, that once Rudy gives up, his voters go to McCain. The GOP is deeply ambivalent about McCain as their candidate, and I could see a LOT of Republican voters staying home rather than turn out in droves if it turns out to be McCain versus Obama.
Only the Obamatons would turn a huge *victory* into another opportunity to excoriate the Clintons. God, you people whine.
Meanwhile, in Realityland, 80% of South Carolina Democrats would be fine with either Clinton or Obama.
Anyhow, congratulations.
Arduous, you make a point. Michigan and Florida voters have a right to be pissed. Pissed at whom is arguable.
But that has nothing to do with why Hillary now wants to make Michigan and Florida count. It has nothing to do with empathy for Democrats in those states. It has everything to do saying anything and doing anything to win an election. Win at all costs.
For the Clintons, it's all about the Clintons.
Florida and Michigan agreed to the primary calendar. Florida didn't even try to get an earlier spot in the calendar. They knew the consequences of breaking the rules they agreed to.
If they wanted their delegates to count, there was a pretty simple to make sure it happened: don't break the rules you agreed to.
cressona, I've said it before, I'll say it again: I want a candidate who will punch hard. "Punch hard" means send your ex-President husband to attack your opponent's record. "Punch hard" means use the legal system to get every advantage against your opponent (re: FL). "Punch hard" means robocalling and strong-arming. THAT'S WHAT I WANT IN THE FALL, SO IT'S WHAT I LIKE WHEN I SEE IT NOW. If Obama did more of that, I'd be more likely to support him.
Does this make me cynical? Perhaps. All I care about is putting a Democrat in the White House in the fall. If that makes me a bad guy, so be it.
Obama is such a wonderful speaker. I am listening to him now and once again I am reminded how he can instill greatness in every word. I really would be excited for him to win, even though I am for Hillary (due to policy mainly).
I think he is great, I think is intelligent and inspiring. He is everything that a president needs to be, and I wish him luck against the GOP if he wins the nom.
@35 - look, perhaps they shouldn't have sanctioned FL and MI. The fact still remains, though, that all the candidates agreed to the decision and signed a pledge not to participate in primaries pushed before Super Tuesday. Edwards's and Obama's campaigns withdrew their names from the ballot on MI to remain true to the spirit of this pledge. Clinton signed it and then refused to. Now she's seeking to benefit from that. It's pretty crooked regardless of the appropriateness of the sanctions.
Big Sven @37:
I'm kinda with Jonathan Chait on this point. I used to like the Clintons. When I saw the Clintons, I saw decent, well-intentioned, politically astute, albeit flawed people. Now I see a marriage between Richard Nixon and King Lear.
If Bill and Hillary want to divide this Democratic Party along racial and gender lines and fuck with the voting process and turn this campaign into a down-and-dirty personal bickering-fest and lie, lie, lie, then damn right I'll excoriate them.
I got an email from John Kerry this week on behalf of the Obama campaign. The subject line was "Swiftboating." And the essence of the message was, "Never again."
oh man, my girl got SLAMMED. i hope it's enough to reign bill in. much as i love the guy, i think he's gotta tone it down and stop running like it's 1992. give his woman room to kick some ass again.
My $.02:
To White Men: WTF? Edwards is limpdick and believes in the State committing murder (ie: captial punishment.)
To Women: I understand your female solidarity, but HRC is is just a morally compromised as her husband. I agree that getting a blowjob is not that big of a deal in the grand scheme of things. However, if it was your boyfriend/husband/girlfriend that was sucking dick/lapping clam I'm pretty sure you'd be pissed to a level that would be quite understandable. And after that you'd question any other morals and opinions of the same person. Why is it that people can so easily look past what President Clinton did just because it "wasn't that big a deal." I'm pretty sure the same level or moral ambiguity is share with his wife.
@40 - yeah, yeah, we know. You're supporting her because you think she's fighting hard. What you don't seem to appreciate is the way she's fighting here demonstrates a certain amorality that isn't magically disappearing once your candidate wins the nom.
If she doesn't win, will it be worth permanently damaging Obama just for the hell of it? And if she does win, you're going to need the people she's happily pissing on mere weeks from now. Why should I be so enthused about a candidate who is clearly just as willing to indiscriminately and aggressively fuck over her fellow Democrats as she is Republicans?
You should listen to them slobber over Obama on MSNBC. Right-wingers! Frigging Scarborough wants his ass! They're going bonkers! When Obama speaks, people go genuinely crazy. I think he's going all the way. Just looking at him I feel hope -- I think; it's been so goddamn long I'm not sure I remember what hope feels like.
Hillary needs to muzzle Bill, NOW. He's moving crowds into Obama's column. The Jesse Jackson remark is as blatant as anything I've heard from a Dem in ages -- it's the voice of Karl Rove. It's the voice of Al Sharpton.
She needs to shut him down. I'd love to be in the room listening to the two of them right now. If she turns on her own husband and tells him to SHUT UP, she's going to get a lot of those voters back.
Cress, are you supporting Obama or just opposing Hillary? Out of the eight posts you've put up here, only one is focused on (sort of) praising Obama and the seven others on vilifying Clinton. So, what exactly makes you so ardent about Obama?
I'm happy that Obama one SC, though I don't think it's much of a bid deal. I'm glad the race is staying competitive and interesting. You seem to think that Hillary running, and fighting, however, is somehow a kind of horrendous breach of decorum. I see that a lot from O supporters on the slog, and it's a bit bewildering (not to mention that it will be completely ineffective in the general campaign). So, is it all negative definition, or does Obama have anything substantive going for him in your eyes? Or is Obama to you, like to so many others, just another vague image upon which you can project your hopes and desires.
Some promising news for Dems in the Fall. Very seldom do the number of voters who participate in the Democratic primary exceed the GOP primary in SC. However, 446,000 participated in the GOP primary, and with 98% of votes counted, 520,000 participated in the Dem primary. The previous record for Dems is 290,000.
aeou @46:
Great point. Presidential campaigns are windows into presidencies. When Bush's surrogates made their despicable attacks against John McCain in 2000, we should have realized what kind of president Bush would be. When Bush's surrogates gave us the verb "swiftboat" in 2004, we should have seen that behavior reflected in the Bush presidency.
Here's a Democrat in Hillary Clinton who will use Karl Rove-style tactics against a fellow Democrat (and how about those mailings in New Hampshire accusing Obama of being weak on abortion rights?), who will subvert the democratic process without the slightest compunction. It should come as no coincidence that this is the same individual who voted for the Iraq War even though she knew better, who sponsored a flag-burning bill even though she knew better, who voted for the bankruptcy bill in 2005 that handed the keys over to the credit-card companies. Oh, and this is the same person who has taken huge amounts of money from the insurance and pharmaceutical industries.
If Clinton does win the presidency, don't be surprised if the Clinton presidency will be just as sordid as the Clinton presidential campaign.
I think you're right, Fnarf. I keep wanting to think Bill Clinton must know what he's doing, but if this is supposed to be a strategy I doubt there's anybody besides Bill who can follow it. Any regular person listening to him has to think he's blowing it for Hillary.
And I don't think she can make him shut up. She tried for years and years to get him to stop fooling around, but did he listen?
johnnie: How about this for Exhibit A. When asked in the debates what his greatest weakness is, Obama was the only one to give an honest, human answer.
Most of the online CNN comments are from people in South Carolina who were disgusted with the Clinton and MSM race-based concepts.
My mom and her husband voted for Edwards - but had been considering Sen Clinton before - two "white" votes lost due to former President Clinton's race-based attacks.
Most Democratic party insiders are disgusted by these throwback 20th Century tactics and think Sen Clinton had better wise up and call off the tactics or the money spigots are going to dry up fast.
Meanwhile the Republicans are still stuck in the 18th Century ...
@50, I'm with 48. I'm kind of tired of seeing all the Clinton vitriol pile up on Slog by Obama-fans. Why so defensive, Obama-fans? I'm pretty sure you outnumber Clinton-fans on the Slog.
Look, I make no attempt to hide my support of HRC. I her. I her big time. But I know it's very possible that Obama will win the nom, and I'd like the Obama-fans to start maybe talking about what it is they love about Obama so I could get excited about him, instead of just smearing Clinton all the time.
it's our time now. the baby boomers have had their chance and have made a great mess of it. obama needs to turn the page and move the democratic party into the new millennium. when i listened to his speech tonight, that's what i heard. the democratic party of the next fifty years, not the last fifty. caroline kennedy feels the same way. change is happening, and i can't fucking wait.
Oops. It's supposed to say that I heart HRC. Not I her.
Could you Obamatons stop bitching and whining for a couple of minutes and celebrate your victory with a little strutting, perhaps a little chest beating? You know, "today South Carolina, tomorrow California and America!" That sort of thing?
No? Gotta keep tearing into the only living successful Democratic President? OK, if you know what you're doing...
hey sven, you know when obama talked about the cynics in his speech tonight? he was talking about you.
I also heart Big Sven.
Elechos, I believe I remember watching those debates and I believe his answer was disorganization. This was not a particularly honest or human answer (though Edwards won the bullshit award with his response), but a triviality masquarading as candor. Had he said mentioned his encompassing fear of death, his lack of faith, his struggle with the very idea of leadership or the nagging persistant voice in the back of his head that everything is in the end meaningless, then that would have been a true and profound answer. All in all, it was a bs question and it got bs answers from the three. But even if you say Obama's was more genuine, that doesn't seem to be much of a testiment for anyone's passion for the man. 'I want a president who can tell me his greatest weakness is that he losses papers!' What?
As to why Edwards did so well - it's more his economic messages in a state with the third-highest unemployment in the nation, in a nation spiralling down the tube towards third-world status, led by the Know Nothings of the GOP.
Edwards spoke up against CEOs and corporate greed ... and that message hit a nerve.
Even if Obama represents the future path, this election is becoming one of economics, of setting the Ship of State back on the proper path, of throwing overboard the neocon terrorists who chained themselves to the wheel and let down the anchor.
And massive Dem turnout to levels that shocks and awes says the Blue Tidal Wave will wipe ALL STATES clean!
Well, I'm not with you on this. To me, being a Democrat means having some ideals, enough to remain sane. I believe in good ideas, in careful thought and in some form of dedicated kindness and concern about the future. Whether it wears a "D" logo or an "R" logo on its shirt doesn't matter to me.
If it's just about my-team-versus-your-team, why bother being a Democrat? The Republicans win more often, after all.
I was a big fan of Bill Clinton until about two weeks ago. I'm supporting Barack, but didn't have any big issue with Hilary. In fact, I was kind of excited about what Bill becoming the first, First Man. I'm pretty sick and tired of the Clinton's now. It's really too bad. They ruined it for me.
@59
For crying out loud. If Obama's answer were not a candid admission of a genuine weakness, then why did his opponents turn around within mere minutes and use it to attack him? Neither of them had the courage to open themselves up to that, but Obama went ahead.
Why? Because he doesn't think the voters are idiots, and because he is brave.
I mean, Hillary said she's too impatient to get people to the better world she has in store for them and Edwards is just too empathic for other people's pain. They must think voters were morons if they think people would swallow that.
Obama's statement that Reagan made the GOP the party of ideas was also courageous, and revealed his belief that the voters are smart enough to recognize the strengths of their opponents. Hillary thinks the voters are too stupid to have any idea why Reagan was so popular.
You can analyze Obama's critical passes again and again and the pattern is one of courage and respect. He doesn't just say it; he demonstrates it in ways that have consequences.
If you don't see that, then you don't want to see it.
Big Sven @56:
Right now, the only person who's tearing down the only living successful Democratic president is the only living successful Democratic president.
Elenchos, you may see Obama's praise of Regan as some sort of sign of great integrity, I saw it more as the testament of someone who values change (any change) over the effects of that change. Reagan was a uniter; he changed the trajectory of America politics, etc. But to what end? These are the same kind of comments Obama makes (ie. "It's about the past versus the future") but without substantive goals to back them up they come across to me as manipulative sentiment.
But that's really tangential to my point. What I would like to know is if there is something specific and substantial about Obama that motivates all these posters who seem to be arguing on his behalf. That his bullshit answer about disorganization indicates to you that he trusts the American people is not a parsing I can go with. Give me more.
Cressona-
You didn't realize that W would be what he is?
The Obama supporters (I'd be happy with anybody but a Repubo) should be happy. Ignore what they see as the bad of HRC and WJB and talk about the grand future instead.
One question. Had any black candidte won a primary except Jesse in SC before Obama won in Iowa?
Shakira - Don't Bother.
Someone should play that for Bill Clinton.
Maybe he'll pick up the cluestick.
Sad how he now practices the Politics of Destruction, when America is tired of that.
@61 - Oh come on.
Our top two candidates are so insanely similar with their policies they're almost indistinguishable on paper.
Democrats right now are voting in favor of the candidate they believe plays the game the most effectively. Their ideals on actual issues are too similar for us to throw up our hands and quit if our favorite personality doesn't win the nomination.
elenchos -
But they are idiots. They've elected Reagan, Reagan, Bush, Clinton, Clinton, Bush, and Bush - before that Nixon, Nixon with Jimmy in there.
Once again Fnarf speaks for me: ¨Just looking at him I feel hope - I think -- it´s been so goddamn long I´m not sure I remember what hope feels like.¨
As a public service for those wondering about this Reagan business, here's a link to the whole interview with the Reno Gazette-Journal editorial board.
http://news.rgj.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080115/VIDEO/80115026
WiL@67-
What did Bill Clinton do that qualifies as "the politics of destruction?"
something specific and substantial about Obama
he voted against the war when it wasn't popular instead of caving like a total pussy and giving bush a blank check like edwards and clinton did. clinton doesn't even have the decency to say she was wrong about that. won't do it.
then look at how clinton has shamelessly run her campaign with bill's help. where she sought division, he sought to bring everyone together.
this country has been demoralized and divided and goaded by both sides for twenty years, and obama represents a break in that cycle. that's the difference. and that is as substantial as it gets. the democratic party needs to move into the future. it started with dean. it's being continued with obama. the establishment (clinton) is trying to maintain the status quo. the status quo that utterly failed with gore/lieberman, the status quo that rolled on torture. that rolled on the war. that rolled on all of our principles and abandoned democratic voters.
that's really what this is about. beyond all the issues and policies.
it's a vote about the future of the party. do you want incompetent, calculating, spineless democrats? or do you want to send a message that they need to go and we need to start fresh?
that's the substance. this thing is going to be a seachange in the democratic party, and the cynics aren't going to let go quietly. but change has been put off for so long, when it finally breaks through, it's going to be big. it's inevitable.
Looked it up and was suprised to find that Jesse had won a ton of primaries.
16 in two campaigns or something like that.
Aside from the man's stump speeches, which are very strong but do in fact tend towards the motivational, in more conversational settings I like the way he thinks. He isn't just articulate; he allows you into his reasoning process and he's rhetorically modest enough to suggest he can accomodate reality.
For instance, in one debate Bill Richardson tried to argue that cap-and-trade programs to reduce carbon emissions (which Obama also supports) would not cost the voters anything and would therefore be preferable to carbon taxes. At which point Obama explained that Richardson wasn't correct. For example, power plants that had to retrofit their equipment would pass on the costs to the consumer, so there would be a real cost involved even in cap-and-trade programs. But it would be a cost worth paying.
I would have to swallow Richardson's approach but I prefer Obama's: State the position clearly, explain your reasoning, acknowledge counterarguments but make the case. It's a way I would want my doctor, my teacher, my President to approach issues.
I have a strong belief that in daily conduct and in crises Obama would take the same reasoned approach: Consult with the people, gather information, state his case, make a clear decision. It feels like leadership without the focus-grouped gunk that coats politics generally.
I honestly think that what people respond to in Obama is not the big smile and the "hope" message but the sense that the man's reasoning is clear and accessible, not to mention basically sound.
You may have been seeking policy papers; those are all available as well.
@73 Yes, Obama has long opposed the war (except for a short period of backtracking on that), which is great. He might even be the best candidate to get us out of there (though I'm not so sure about his ability to do anything with the Senate or Hourse). But then your argument turns from that one position to attacking HRC and promising change and unity. Again, unity to what end? Change in what direction? The desire to change the system shouldn’t just be attached to any sort of change. You might end up supporting Ron Paul that way.
@65
No, I'm not going to give you more. You are not a serious person. You would have to be intentionally misreading his Reagan comments to say that. Run along now.
whatever, I think you are exactly right. Treat the voters like rubes and look at who you get. Hillary fits quite well in that list of names; it's not for nothing that the Democratic establishment is so comfortable with her.
e - so if Obama treats them like they are not idiots and the repubos treat them like they are - who wins?
johnnie @48:
Johnnie, from a policy standpoint, I support Obama because of his judgment and courage, because he's one of the few liberals who refuse to pander to liberal orthodoxy. Read his speech against the Iraq invasion. He opposed the war on a national-security basis, and his points proved prescient.
From a pragmatic political standpoint, I support Obama because he has the potential to bring about a progressive revolution the likes of which we haven't seen since FDR. And no, I'm not leaving out LBJ's Great Society. Obama can do for progressivism not just what Reagan did for conservatism, but beyond that.
But my passion for Barack Obama is about so much more than policy and politics. My mama believes Obama is the reincarnation of Abraham Lincoln. And frankly (figuratively), I agree with her. Obama combines the vision of a Gore with the eloquence of a JFK. How many presidents have we had with that kind of combination? Lincoln. FDR. Maybe Washington. Who else?
You know why America is a declining, decadent nation that's getting its ass kicked by the EU and China? Because we're a bunch of spoiled, selfish, short-sighted babies. And because our politicians, wishing to get elected, humor our every infantile whim. Obama is the only candidate out there who is really speaking to a sense of shared purpose and shared sacrifice. For example, with cap-and-trade, he doesn't patronize the voters by claiming that it won't drive up energy costs. It will.
One other thing. Like many a mortal person, I struggle every day with the choices I make, whether to do the principled thing or the thing that will get me ahead. I like to think the principled thing will get me ahead in the long run. Of course, in the long run we're all dead. So I question whether I've made the right choices. (Hey, I question whether I'm wasting my time posting on a forum like this.) On a very personal level, Barack Obama is someone I look up to because he is a man who, with his own life choices, has put principle ahead of expediency. Believe me, he had infinitely "better" opportunities than going to work as a community organizer on the South Side of Chicago for three years.
Big Sven = lose.
@74: Correct me if I'm wrong, but Jesse got less than 10% of the white vote in each of those. Obama won 24% in SC, of all place!
For anyone who is interested, the demographic breakdown is at http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/primaries/results/epolls/index.html#SCDEM
Elenchos, that's some great advocacy. I hope the Obama campaign doesn't enlist you in any canvassing efforts.
@75 - That was a good moment for Obama, and part of why I like him. However, it's also hard to balance such statements with his support for nuclear power and ethanol, which are presented to make one believe that solving our enivornmental crisis won't be as hard as it seems. (Fuck, it's going to be virtually impossible in today's society and the changes certainly aren't going to come voluntarily from those in power, O, HRC, GWB, whoever).
However, it's also a bit of an illustration about why I'm a bit distrustful of Obama (like all clergy). Politics is about power brokering, catering to the ruling class, and compromise. All candidates and all politicians have to negotiate that. One cannot simply wish it away or give a speech to change this. To do so would require systematic change which is rarely, in fact never, brought about from the inside.
Deep down, we all know that elections are more or less a farce. Some people do more damage in this game (GWB) than others. What I like about Hillary, is that her whole life implicitly acknowledges this. That is, she's honest. She's compromised, she's willing to get dirty, and she knows that true change can't so easily be brought about, but small improvements can. What I generally don't like about Obama is that he doesn't see this is as. People may say that Obama is arguing for the change that is needed to end this, but I certainly don't see this (remember, LBJ did infact pass the civil rights act as president, MLK was too smart to go for such a compromising position). Anyone who is running for President is running for the position of 'most powerful person in the world' and should damn well plan on having their sainthood compromised by this. To not acknowledge this is to lie to your audience. But I'm a bitter old drunk.
Anyway, it's late here in NY and I'm going out on the town and cannot spend anymore time refreshing this page, so that will be my last word.
Or will it?
Correction on 81: *places* not place
@78
Well, I don't know who will win. But most polls say Hillary either loses or ties with McCain, while Obama wins against any Republican. I'm really hoping the GOP is dumb enough to nominate Mitt.
The funny thing is, McCain is also often brave enough to tell people what they don't want to hear but need to hear. So it seems me people prefer that. In both cases, the party establishment is dead set against it.
e - hope you are right.
He didn't vote against anything. He wasn't in the Senate at the time.
I remember hearing about how Jackson's presidential bid was torpedoed in '88. Plenty of race baiting there, including accusations that Jackson was a "typical" black anti-Semite. (He was ahead of the pack in acknowledging the existence of a Palestinian problem.) Supposedly, everyone's hero Al Gore figured heavily in that.
And as we leave this state with a new wind at our backs, and take this journey across the country we love with the message we've carried from the plains of Iowa to the hills of New Hampshire; from the Nevada desert to the South Carolina coast; the same message we had when we were up and when we were down - that out of many, we are one; that while we breathe, we hope; and where we are met with cynicism, and doubt, and those who tell us that we can't, we will respond with that timeless creed that sums up the spirit of a people in three simple words:
Yes. We. Can.
*heavy sigh*
That reminds me of St Patrick's Day 2003 when W got us marching off to war. I cried then and I'm getting misty eyed over Obama now. I would be happy to keep the WA state governor we have now and have Obama for Prez for at least 8 years...then I can die happy. I wonder who his running mate will be.
@72 - LOL. As if I'm the only one saying that, Big Sven. It's not just me, it's the frickin exit poll questions of the South Carolina voters - including the ones who voted for Sen Clinton - who are saying that President Clinton was practicing the Politics of Destruction.
Wake up and smell reality.
And, very good points @79, cressona.
Look, try to spin it as you wish - the voters THEMSELVES told you they don't want that and they voted AGAINST that - and they still TURNED OUT even with the attempts to suppress the vote.
The Clintons had better listen well - and fast. Even N.H. said the same thing to them, but the Clintons conveniently "forgot".
johnnie:
Your argument seems to be: Politics is worthless and degraded, and so is HRC. You really do sound like a Republican; why not just become one? If you're satisfied with whatever incremental less-than-horrible outcomes dribble out of the process, well, Nixon had those and so would Mitt Romney or John McCain. Why bother?
What an odd stance you strike. If someone comes along who can reason, who puts together coherent arguments, who seems decent and positive and realistic and (get this) not full of shit, your counter argument is: Well, everything turns to shit anyway so why bother.
Why bother indeed?
Anyway, good luck with your drunken stupor. If I felt the way you do I'd be headed for one as well.
Will in Seattle @ 88-
Me thinks thou protests too much. If my question is so absurd, I'm sure you can think of a ton of examples and thus make me look even more foolish.
Go ahead, I'll wait.
whitey @ 80-
Your argument is compelling.
The most interesting fact in the coverage so far is that Obama got more votes than McCain and Huckabee combined. South Carolina is hardly known as a Democratic state (last Dem to win the presidential vote there was Johnson in 1964), yet Obama motivated Democratic voters to come out at double the numbers as the top two Republicans. That bodes very very well for the general election.
Obamatons: WJC hasn't helped HRC this week, but equating (a) WJC's discussion of SC's racial demographics with calling a war hero a lying traitor, or (b) HRC's aggressive questioning of Obama's record with spreading rumors in SC about another war's hero's fictitious interracial baby, reveals you to be excitable political neophytes with no understanding of what a BRUISING FUCKING FIGHT the general election is going to be. It does not make me reflexively want to support your candidate.
Tell me why the fuck I should support your candidate, not why you are pissed at the Clintons. Victimhood is not a path to the White House.
Cheers.
whatever @78:
So whatever, I suppose the fate of this nation is only a secondary consideration for you? I'm an American. I used to be a lot prouder to be an American. And I look at this election as a lot more than sport.
OK, I know I'm quoting truisms from economists tonight. But there was another economist who said that something that can't go on won't. At some point, the voters—and the politicians—have to realize that that maybe this nation's decline has something to do with the voters being shortsighted fools and the politicians humoring their foolishness. That is, eventually "straight talk" becomes not just the moral-high-ground strategy but the winning strategy.
As elenchos observes @84, this also speaks to McCain's appeal.
Oh, to the Hillary supporters out there who keep asking about Obama's substance. Well, where's Hillary's substance? I'll admit she seems to have an encyclopedic mastery of the details of government. She reminds me a bit of someone who's had the brains beaten out of them by the cutthroat Chinese and Japanese educational systems. Lotta facts, little vision. All trees, no forest.
Sorry, but at this point in history (or any point in history) I'd rather have a Larry Page or Sergey Brin kinda president, not a Ken Jennings kinda president.
"Tell me why the fuck I should support your candidate."
very simple: if he can withstand the clinton machine, he will no doubt weather the republican machine with equal ease.
if he passes this test, there will be no stopping him.
Big Sven @92: Victimhood is not a path to the White House.
Unless you're the Clintons, I guess.
Andy, my drunken stupor (I wish!) hasn’t gotten himself out of the house just yet, so here I go:
I do not believe politics is worthless and degraded, nor do I believe Hillary is so. I do believe, however, and I think any serious analysis of how power structure works will back this up, that power is corrupting and that those in power, regardless of their intentions, end up serving to continue the system which brought them into power. I do not think the presidency is a source of drastic societal or structural change, nor do I think it can be without major changes to the system in which it functions.
I believe that Hillary does hold genuine principles and ideals and has, unfortunately, had to compromise these because one of her goals is power. C’est la vie – one of Barack’s is certainly power as well, and neither are Ghandi or even Chavez. The fact that she does not pander to people, does not promise them a world that cannot be delivered through the political process in which she is engaging, is honest and forthright. Her knowledge of policy and her ability to handle specifics is encouraging, and attests to the small but significant changes she will be able to accomplish in this position.
I think that Barack’s rhetoric often approaches hucksterism and a willing naiveté about what is required to bring about change. It is, in fact, very disempowering, as it disguises the real work that is needed to accomplish change with platitudes about change. I have infact devote a lot of my energies to bringing about social change and I have the FBI record to prove it. I also know that anyone who is truly interested in change and has truly struggled for it is in no position to run for president. I wish that those who seem to so desperately support his calls to change actually think about the change they want to see, think about what actions need to be taken to achieve that, then get their asses out on the pavement to start such change.
Now I'm out the door.
So far as I can tell, Big Sven, your primary reason, if not your only reason, for feeling we should vote for Clinton in the primary is that only she is said to have the aggressive attack machine necessary to win elections. If this is true, why is she not absolutely devastating Obama - a candidate you seem to have declared a lightweight, and one with no institutional support to boot? It seems that the only solid evidence for your argument would lie in her, y'know, winning elections with a strong attack machine.
There's plenty of other problems with your argument, but let's start there.
Negative comments like this seem like they're being posted by people actually working for the Obama campaign. Either way, now it's the Obamatons acting like the slimy Republicans of the 1990's.
Obama has no substance, and it really bugs me that he's trying to hijack the MLK legacy.
Big Sven's rationale for Hillary Clinton's candidacy reminds me of a column by David Brooks of The New York Times way back in 2004. He was trying to explain why America was still divided 50-50 Republican/Democrat just like in 2000 but with ostensibly different issues at the forefront.
Brooks points toward partisanship for partisanship's sake:
Luo and Kikuyu. Dems and Reps. And we want to pass up an opportunity to get past this?
Nebula37 @98: Either way, now it's the Obamatons acting like the slimy Republicans of the 1990's.
Nebula, following your logic, simply by calling the Republicans of the '90s slimy, aren't you yourself acting like "the slimy Republicans of the 1990's?"
Nebula37: Obama has no substance, and it really bugs me that he's trying to hijack the MLK legacy.
Let me give another example of where Obama's substance fuses with his broader message. Social Security. It doesn't take a brain surgeon to figure out what to do about Social Security. Raise taxes and/or reduce benefits. It's a question of political will and accepting some kind of sacrifice and shift in the social contract.
Obama has said everything's on the table, as far as he's concerned, with the exception of privatization. And the one option he has supported is lifting the $96K tax limit. This may not be the best solution, but at least it's one realistic solution that he has landed on.
So what does Hillary Clinton do in response? She cynically sends out a hit piece mailing in Nevada accusing Obama of raising taxes on hard-working families. So what would Hillary prefer instead? Reducing benefits for fixed-income seniors?
johnnie:
That's an extremely reasonable stance. I do think that charismatic personalities present a genuine danger in democracies, and I do have respect for the down-in-the-trenches pols who run the policies, strike the compromises, keep things on track, etc. In many election cycles I've voted for those and felt no guilt.
The problem is that the Democrats have become so prosaic they're not even, in practical terms, effective anymore. Witness how blah and supine the Congress of the past two years have been -- they can't do a god-damned thing. They're so devoid of conviction they can't string any efforts together. The party needs a jolt, not a bureaucrat.
I'm actually less drawn to the sermonizing Obama than I am to the thinking, reasoning Obama. Against his image, he's actually a somewhat cool and cerebral type. I expect he would adjust fairly smoothly to the constraints of office but keep his candor and reason at least 80% intact. But he does have a warmth and charisma that would, in my guess, yield some practical results, such as a coherent legislative agenda. We need that.
Insulting the supporters of another candidate, with the exact same positions as my own centrist candidate, on a message board is the most effective campaigning I can do for my candidate.
Big Sven, got any reason for me to want to vote for Clinton? I want some assurance that what happened in 1994, when the GOP took the House, won't happen again in 2010.
@34 Don't forget this one...
Contras tonight's 54% for Obama with Michigan, where Clinton won 55% of the vote when her only competition was "uncommitted".
This Super Tuesday states are going to start breaking annnny minute now.
@34 Don't forget this one...
Contrast tonight's 54% for Obama with Michigan, where Clinton won 55% of the vote when her only competition was "uncommitted".
This Super Tuesday states are going to start breaking annnny minute now.
I'm going to try to turn off the "Go Hillary!" switch for a second and see if it works.
Both brandon@94 and tsm@97 say basically that if Obama can beat Clinton in the primaries, then he clearly has what it takes to win in the fall. I totally agree.
Seeing Gore and Kerry thrashed like baby seals in the last two generals, I NEED a candidate that I know will fight back. I like Obama, and I am not immune to the argument that he is a transcendent politician that will move beyond the fights of the last century.
But the Republicans won't. They will lie and cheat and steal. I need a candidate who will fight contested elections, in every court room in every state, until there are literally no courts left. I need a candidate who will never let their opponent define them with lies and slander.
I'm in a good place right now. I love HRC, and if she wins I'll be happy. If Obama wins, it will be after he has emerged a harder fighter by taking on Clinton, and he'll have a better chance in the fall. I don't buy that either of these candidates right now are doing damage to the chances of the party in the fall by running such a vigorous campaign (which, if you admit it Obama fans, hasn't been all puppy dogs and rainbows on either side.)
cressona, I'm not partisan for partisan's sake. I think that all the Democratic candidates in this race are pro-choice, for a sensible exit from Iraq, for reigning in the excesses of the last seven years, and ahead of the general populace on civil rights. All of the Republican candidates are not. I've been a Democrat for thirty years and love my party. I don't view this as anything like a sporting event.
Sigh.
More than 100 posts from Seattle Democrats bemoaning or celebrating their candidates' limited future.
Only to be again flustered in November when Mitt Romney becomes president.
Then we'll see another outlandish Stranger story on how the country is going to hell in a handbasket.
The world didn't come to an end in 2004.
And it won't in 2008.
It's so predictable.
Uh, yeah, but hundreds of thousands--if not millions--of Iraqi human beings have lost their lives in the intervening years, 107. Did their world not come to an end? Or were you just thinking about your predictable one?
MidwayPete@103
My argument in response to that is predicated on whether you believe HRC was really a political partner to Bill while he was president. If you don't, I've got no way to assuage your concern other than saying that I think Clinton is a sharp politician with a track record as NY Senator of working with Republicans and in turn getting Republican votes in NY. Yes, she is polarizing, but so was Reagan and he managed to work with a Democratic congress.
If you *do* believe the partnership argument, then I would say that the Clintons were in over their heads during the first two years, but that they learned from the 1994 election and never made the same political mistake twice. I think that any president spends their first year or two learning the ropes, and I *do* think there's an argument that that learning curve would be shorter with Hillary, who has after all a very strong record after the health care debacle of being an extremely astute politician.
My wiener hurts. Actually, I had wiener reduction surgery today. Let's face it -- my cock was too fucking big. I had to have the surgery if I ever hoped to have a relationship.
So now it's 8". I hope that's OK.
Thank you.
Long, or around? Either way, I'm not impressed.
Sven, yes, I think HRC was a partner with WJC during the two terms. Other than learning to be cautious, I'm not sure what Clinton learned from the health care debacle.
Seeing Gore and Kerry thrashed like baby seals in the last two generals
BigSven, winning 49.9% of the electorate is not enough to win the presidency, sure, but it's NOT being thrashed like baby seals either. I agree that Gore and Kerry were loser campaigners, and they STILL got half of the popular vote!
Guys, I'm not predicting who's going to win in 2008. But here are a couple of things to keep in mind:
* All any of you have to do -- and I know it's not fun to do, but it's worth it, trust me -- is to go any prominent right wing blog and look at the amount of despair and desperation there. It's very different than it was even a year ago, much more pre 2006.
* If you really feel the GOP is going to win the election, you have to believe that the GOP candidate is going to win back a critical amount of 2004 Blue State electoral votes from Kerry. (You all remember the United States Of Canada/Jesusland pictures fondly, right?). Except *maybe* for Wisconsin, I just don't see any of the 2004 blue states becoming 2008 red states with ANY of the GOP candidate possibilities, as things currently stand. I stress "as things currently stand."
More likely, you will see a red state that goes blue. All Obama or HRC would need is to retain the 2004 blue states, and then get one more. Say, New Mexico, for example. There. The Dems win.
And this is a realist look at it, not an optimistic one, *as things currently stand*.
Optimistically? *If* HRC or Obama take either Virginia or Florida, then the Dems are going to sail to victory.
A lot could happen between now and November.. things that we have no clue will influence the final decision in 2008. All of this primary stuff is just noise right now, in the grand scheme.. much of it that will be forgotten, for better or worse.
I'd look at Eli's horchata pic and take a hint. There's nothing you can do except know that, for most of you, you will finally have a much stronger Democratic candidate than in the past decade, and realize that, sure while you don't want to hedge your bets, you don't have to suffer the completely simplistic, unnecessary, dumb and miserable reverse-Kerry cynicism/despair hangover either.
e - so if Obama treats them like they are not idiots and the repubos treat them like they are - who wins?
Cressona this Bushian with us or against us approach is not productive.
As I stated earlier I'm for anything that's not a Repubo - meaning any Dem. I'm not a HRC supporter or Obama opponent.
Your I'm an American remark is offensive.
Big Sven @106:
Fair enough. And it was wrong for me to suggest that you are only partisan for partisanship's sake.
While I'm disgusted at the Clintons for using modern-day Republican tactics, I do acknowledge that Hillary does have a modern-day Democratic agenda. The tactics--and the big contributions from insurance and drug companies--do make me suspicious, but I certainly don't believe Hillary Clinton would turn into a Republican once in office.
Suppose it's Clinton vs. McCain in the general election. As much as I appreciate McCain--and as nasty as a Clinton campaign might get against McCain--I would still hold my nose and vote for Hillary. And that has nothing to do with tribalism or identity politics.
So yeah, in that respect I see where you're coming from.
@114: Only in America is stating "I'm an American" offensive.
I'm an American. Neener, neener, neeeeeeeener!
@116 actually I think "I'm an American" is offensive just about everywhere besides america, teehee. Only other anglos can still stomach us.
cressona@115: cool.
@116 & @117: I like to listen to "Born in the USA" nowadays. I'm not generally a huge fan of the The Boss, but the idea of "educated patriotism"- that you can love your country *more* when you know how fucked up it is and how far we have to go- I find both inspirational and heartbreakingly bittersweet. (It's the same feeling I get when I watch the end of "An American President.")
Conversely, when they started playing "God Bless the USA" at Monster Jam last weekend (yes, I know, what did I expect) I almost left.
I guess the Democrats have their own evangelist wing, too. They're the ones who seem to favor (religious)(political)(sexual)(whatever) Purity, rather than an actual range of issues.
Using words like "disgusted" and "shame" to attack a candidate (a candidate who offers essentially the same platform as Obama) says more about the attacker's own moral fervor than about HRC as an actual person.
@113:
All we have to win are the states we won in 2004 plus either NM or Virginia?
Seems like the answer is no.
http://www.270towin.com/
shows solid blue and red and swing states as projected for 2008. It's fun to click on different states and see what happens. To see what more states we need than we got in 2004, go to the select a starting view menu and pick 2004 actuals. Then click on a state to see if it's enough to change the result.
NM or VA alone aren't.
@120: thank you for the link, and the math correction.
Well, NM *and* Virginia will do it. As will NM, Colorado, and Nevada.
Again, those swing states will likely paint slightly bluer this time, stressing "likely".
I'm hoping electoral state math will not matter (i.e. Florida goes blue), but we'll see.
Meanwhile, the GOP/Red State websites are now arguing amongst themselves who supported the Iraq war more. Not really good times happenin' for the GOP.
Seems like we need what we got in 2004 plus either
(A) NM, Colo. and NV, or
(B) Ohio, or
(C) Florida.
I think Ohio elected a Democratic governor and senator recently. Their economy is hurting. Their Republican secretary of state/chief vote counter/head of Bush reelection committee is out of office now, too.
Looking good for the D's this Fall.
There's even more fun maps at http://www-personal.umich.edu/~mejn/election/
re-sizing states by population or electoral college votes to make the red and blue areas almost equal in the 2004 results.
Interesting maps, Cleve.
This is your country.
This is your country on drugs.
Any questions?
Patriotism is the last refuge of a scoundrel.
Mentioning that one is an American in a discussion about the candidtes implies that people that are not in lock step are not. Or at least not as American.
@126: Well, bub, if it's any consolation, you sound plenty American to me.
"nuclear power and ethanol"
Ethanol is big baby. Check out this google techtalk:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-570288889128950913&q=gas+google+tech+talks+site%3Avideo.google.com&total=124&start=0&num=10&so=0&type=search&plindex=7
As for nukes? It is better than coal.
MESSAGE
MESSAGE
MESSAGE
MESSAGE
MESSAGE
Comments Closed
In order to combat spam, we are no longer accepting comments on this post (or any post more than 14 days old).