Impeach Bush & Cheney!
"Google" your Voter Registration
Register to Vote
Visit the Democratic Party
Oh Bama!
99% reporting:
| Votes | % | Delegates | |
| Obama | 295,091 | 55% | 25 |
| Clinton | 141,128 | 27% | 12 |
| Edwards | 93,552 | 18% | 8 |
So what do you think? Will this give Obama a big enough boost to beat Clinton on Super Tuesday? Did Bill blow it for Hill? Did Edwards get enough votes to remain competitive?
Update 1: I like Jane Hamsher's take:
You would think that none of these people had ever been through an election before, with everyone reaching for the oxygen tanks over the "negative campaigning" in South Carolina. Hello, Lee Atwater? Anybody remember him? And Digby is right, all media concern trolls joining with right wing concern trolls about how Big Bad Bill is being mean to poor Barack only serves to infantalize Obama. Clinton has unfairly characterized many of Obama's positions but Obama has stood up to it well and fired back with gusto. Anyone who truly does care should be cheering him on for proving he is tough enough to take on the Republicans and get off the fainting couch, because most people over the age of 12 who aren't paid to punditize on teevee know that compared to what's coming this is pure little league.
- Bob Fertik's blog
- Login or register to post comments
Printer-friendly version- Send to friend
Join us & contribute
Proud members of the Democratic Party
Copyright 2006 Democrats.com. All rights reserved. Privacy Policy
R U Kidding Me?
What the SC vote shows is that Obama succeeded in turning himself into the Black candidate
by complaining about what the Clintons were saying about him. This was a strategic mistake. He needs more than the Black vote to win. The problem isn't so much what Bill Clinton is saying as it is with the media amplifying and distorting it.
Its time to get over the media driven witch hunt of Hillary Clinton. Face up to fact that she is our strongest candidate on the issues. She has a better handle on world affairs, the economy and on healthcare. She will be better equipped to deal with Republican attacks. Go Hillary!
Dig a little deeper
I agree with you cajel, if you break it down a little further you see that it was disproportionately African American votes that caused the discrepancy. African Americans account for roughly 14% of the population of the US but closer to 75% of the population of South Carolina. Over 80% South Carolina African Americans voted Obama whereas the non-African American vote was split more along the national trends for all three candidates.
Which brings up another serious question. Are African Americans more racially bias than caucasians? If the South Carolina primary is any indicator even as much as I don't want to believe that, the answer is a huge yes.
what racist crap this is
Obama's first win was in friggin' I-O-W-A where blacks represent 1% of the vote.
Obama has proven that he can win white votes, black votes, Latino votes, Asian votes, Native American votes, and multi-ethnic votes.
So why are DEMOCRATS falling for this racist crap that because MANY (not all) blacks support Obama, therefore ONLY blacks support Obama?
To see what racist crap this is, try applying the same "theory" to any other identity:
"Because Romney gets most Mormon votes, ONLY Mormons will support Romney."
"Because Huckabee gets most evangelical votes, ONLY evangelicals will support Huckabee."
"Because Hillary gets most women's votes, ONLY women will support Hillary."
"Because JFK got most Catholic votes, ONLY Catholics would support JFK."
America is a diverse nation. That's why our motto is "E Pluribus Unum" - out of many, one.
Like the rest of us, Obama has many identities, and he appeals to many of the rest of ours.
The Republican Party and the Corporate Media are trying to divide Democrats by race. Let's fight back with everything we've got, starting with our determined (and informed) refusal to accept Republican crap!
Read what I actually wrote
Obama got and will continue to get a fair share of white votes. All I was pointing out is that his blow out victory in SC was due to his overwhelming support by black voters in a predominately black state. If you can argue with that rationally I am listening.
Cloud,
Not a stranger to taking care of yourself, no?
How the HECK are ya?
Hello my pretty
Long time since I have talked to you. You are looking particularly lovely tonight.
To answer your question, I work to much and I'm away from home to much and I am turning 60 next Monday. All in all, life is GREAT. I have to go to a meeting in Las Vegas on Sunday but will get to see number two son while I'm there so that has a good side to it as well.
And how about you? Hopefully I will be available more often in the near future and we might get a chance to chat again.
I don't think Cloud is suggesting
that only African American voters vote for Obama.
It's not true.
A huge percentage of black voters did vote for him in SC.
It's just fact.
Here is an interesting perspective from an African American voter.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&add...
I am more concerned about
I am more concerned about the DLC's neocon corporate influence on all Democratic candidates (Congressional and Presidential) than with their race, gender, or religion.
Precisely
The Corporate infulence issue is the real negative for both parties. The Repugs won't change but as Dems we have a chance so that is why I will be voting for Edwards tomorrow. With only the three of them left and both Clinton and Obama accepting PAC money supporting John Edwards is a no brainer IMHO.
White, Black, or Grey?
The White Candidates got 45% of the vote.
The Black Candidate got 55% of the vote.
A 5% swing makes this a tie.
In a State that is 75% Black.
---------------------------------------------
The State is so small that a switch of 30,000 votes places the Black and the White candidates in a tie.
Since somebody has to win I do not see it as shocking that one would win by the margin above.
Now, if one were to speculate about which part of that 5% might carry a bias toward race, it might make sense, though its a small concern.
Even there however why the hell would it matter when a large portion of the electorate already feels fine with ANY of the three candidates and so can entertain MILD bias.
Personally, I would be happy to see any of them win. Two bring about cultural change immediately. I can't fault someone for being on the fence and then leaning toward a bias. If this was Alan Keyes versus Hillary, and those numbers remained the same, THEN I'd start throwing stones (boulders...).
ready to serve?
I want someone to tell me, because this is really bothering me..since when does being First Lady make you qualified to be President? Other than that she was the junior Senator from New York, that doesn't qualify her as a foreign policy guru..NOBODY is ready to serve as President from day one, some never are, just look at what we have now.
The president surrounds himself with capable advisors and prepares to learn the job as things present themselves, and if he/she is good, the on the job training makes them better.
I don't know if Obama really represents change, but you know what. I'm willing to take that chance.
You make some valid points
and some I disagree with. That's okay. It makes America great.
I haven't made up my mind yet. There are three of them who bring their own to the table. Since you want to discuss Obama, I would like to make one point. He brings a message of hope and change. When someone like myself is undecided, the demeanor his supporters have does have an effect on my opinion of the candidate. Maybe it's wrong, I dunno. I just think that if your guy is wonderful you should be walking around with a great big smile on your face and you should be shaking hands because the confidence you show in your candidate can be contagious.