Home > Politics > Political Radar

« Giuliani Buys Lengthy TV Ad To Make Closing Argument | Main | Clinton and Edwards Get In Last Second Shots »

Live-Blogging S.C. Democratic Primary Results by Rick Klein

Share

January 26, 2008 4:37 PM

9:55 pm: As we breathe to thank goodness for this tremendous race -- who's got more pressure now? The campaign now goes national, which is an advantage for Sen. Clinton. Yet Sen. Obama has an energy, an enthusiasm, on his side that's now worked for him twice. It also hasn't worked for him twice. This is going to be a bruiser -- get ready for everything to get tossed in every direction.

That's it for tonight. Check back tomorrow for a special edition of The Note. As always, thanks for reading...

9:49 pm: Clinton offers some congratulations in passing -- and mentions those "millions and millions of Americans" who are "going to have the chance to have their voices heard and their votes counted." On message -- no? Oh, and there was a Florida reference there, for good measure.

9:38 pm: Edwards can talk about how all these states haven't voted yet, but he -- even more than Clinton or Obama -- based his campaign on a four-state strategy, focusing on Iowa, New Hampshire, Nevada, and South Carolina. He came in second, third, far distant third, and third. I don't know how he continues as an actual candidate, but he can continue as a cause, for what it's worth. If that's what John Edwards wants...

9:34 pm: Here comes John Edwards -- he must have trouble smiling tonight. "The three of us move on to Feb. 5," Edwards says. And he joins the president and Sen. Clinton in "graduating" -- sorry, "congratulating" -- Obama. How's that for a slip?

9:29 pm: Wrapping up a bit -- we're talking about a margin of victory of something in the neighborhood of 28 points. I don't care who set the odds, but that beats the spread, and then some. And Obama just gave a humdinger of a speech -- it started slow, but it hit a tremendous crescendo -- even Michelle Obama looked surprised by how good it was.

So Obama has a springboard to take into Feb. 5 -- if he can avoid being drawn into the tit-for-tat politics that the Clinton folks have been trying to mire him in for weeks. It ensures that all eyes will be on Bill Clinton, again -- will his role change substantially in the next 10 days?

9:20 pm: "It is not about black versus white," Obama says. He's returning to his 2004 speech, almost explicitly. It worked for a reason. The rhythm, the cadences -- he is behind the pulpit now, firing up his congregation. It's powerful.

9:13 pm: Watching Obama's speech -- I'm struck again by how much better he sounds when he wins than when he loses. Maybe all politicians are that way, but I think it's especially true about Obama. But so far, his speech after his victory in Iowa seemed better -- transcendent, forward-looking, powerful. He is focusing quite a bit on the big disagreements (such as they are) in the campaign. When he says, "That status quo is fighting back with everything it's got" -- this feeds the argument that Bill Clinton knew exactly what he was doing by roughing Obama up a bit.

But this is Obama's night. And if you're a voter in a Feb. 5 state, you're seeing a very talented politicians in action.

9 pm: As Obama gets set to take the stage, consider the margin as returns roll in. It's a 2-1 margin. That is a blowout by any measure. And another boost for Obama: The title tells it all in this op-ed, by Caroline Kennedy: "A President Like My Father."

8:51 pm: Reporters just got copies of Obama's victory speech -- and this is a really interesting one. It's not just about thanking his supporters with soaring rhetoric about changing the country.

Here's a taste: "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."

Very intriguing.

8:44 pm: The latest results:

8:39 pm: Voters in the 2/5 states aren't watching the returns tonight and saying, Hmm, I guess I should vote for Obama too. But as they tune in seriously, they are watching what the candidates are doing and saying, and watching for signals voters in other states are sending. So no -- this does not mean by any stretch that Obama is set to romp. But he's set to compete with Clinton probably anytime and anywhere.

Bottom line prediction: Obama is going to get his groove back.

8:33 pm: Do you think the Clinton campaign can make Florida count after all this time? Is this just an inside-baseball political thing -- will the big headline on Wednesday morning (the only such headline that can be won in this 10-day span before Super Tuesday) make it all worthwhile?

8:24 pm: First, I don't know who you are, but there is no role for the outright racist comments below. No role.

As to whether Obama can win white voters -- of course he can. He did in Iowa, and winning about a quarter in a strong three-way race isn't awful. But Hillary Clinton has demonstrated real strength among not just white voters, but also Latinos -- who will play a huge role in some of the biggest 2/5 states, including the big daddy, California.

8:13 pm: Watching Bill Clinton right now in Missouri -- he quickly references "a big victory for us in Florida in just a couple of days." This, again, from the campaign that is telling us this is a battle for delegates -- they are now focused on winning a beauty contest in Florida. "Ladies and gentlemen, this is an interesting race," the former president said. "He won fair and square. . . . Now we go to Feb. 5, where millions of Americans finally get in the act." (Translation: Never mind the states we've all spent the last year wooing.)

Fair and square -- that's more generous than he was post-Nevada, when Obama actually lost!
And then he said his "current capacity" is "post-politics." Right . . .

8:07 pm: The latest take from ABC polling director Gary Langer: "A vast wave of support from African-Americans lifted Barack Obama to victory in South Carolina's Democratic primary. But his showing among white voters suggests an uphill battle in those upcoming primaries where blacks play less of a role."

"Whites meanwhile divided more closely among the three candidates, though Obama notably failed to attract more than a quarter of their votes. Clinton and Edwards were even among whites, with Clinton winning white women, Edwards, white men. Interestingly, then, it was blacks who gave Clinton her second-place finish."

8:05 pm: A gracious statement from Clinton -- and a quick reference to 2/5 (and American Samoa!?) "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."

7:59 pm: A first cut at Obama spin, from ABC's Sunlen Miller: The Obama campaign is framing Obama’s South Carolina win as a "repudiation of the politics of the past."  Communications Director Robert Gibbs says the campaign "they" conducted this week was beaten tonight.  On Bill Clinton, Gibbs says that if tonight "is any measure may we should hope he goes to a lot of places."

7:40 pm: ABC is projecting Hillary Clinton as the second-place finisher, with Edwards taking third. So a storyling is NOT a Clinton washout, but what does Edwards do? Is he content to pick up a handful of delegates here and there? As things are heading now, I'm not sure he gets to the level of being a potential kingmaker.

7:38 pm: And the white vote is key here, naturally. If Obama ends up with about a quarter of white votes, is that enough for him to claim a broad coalition? I'm not convinced, BUT remember that he won Iowa, even though that's a state with almost no black voters.

7:21 pm: The battle for second does become key here. If Sen. Clinton comes in third (like she did in Iowa) that will be a shocker. And it gets John Edwards back in the conversation, though perhaps not fully in the race. If Clinton comes in second -- well, that's what was expected. And Edwards will be having some very serious conversations about what comes next.

7:15 pm: We're going to see Hillary Clinton speak at 8:30 -- from Tennessee, not South Carolina, with her eyes on the next round. Obama we're expecting around 9 -- from the friendly confines of Columbia, S.C.

7:10 pm: So it's four big contests down, and it's two apiece. (And the AP is calling it a rout, as returns just begin to trickle in). We continue to take different lessons from each of these contests. But it's more clear than ever that this thing is going to Feb. 5 and very probably well beyond -- Ohio and Texas, which vote March 4, are good contests to circle on the calendar.

And this is the biggest challenge for the Clinton machine since . . . well, Iowa. Bill Clinton can suggest that this is happening solely because Obama is black, but if Bill Clinton thinks Obama is Jesse Jackson, he's deluding himself -- and very possibly hurting his wife's campaign.

7:02 pm: Stephanopoulos: "This is a big loss for Hillary today." And this from Rep. Jim Clyburn (who stayed neutral -- mostly -- to the end), a few moments ago on MSNBC: "In the last 48 hours, the voters kind of recoiled. The decided to reject the racial animus that seemed to be developing. I'm so pleased."

7 pm ET: ABC IS CALLING THE RACE RIGHT AT POLL CLOSING TIME. From our decision desk: "Based on exit poll data, ABC News projects that Obama will win the South Carolina Democratic primary. We do not yet have enough information to project who will be second or third, but based on the exit polls Clinton is leading over Edwards in a race for second."

This would SUGGEST a large margin -- networks don't call races based only on exit polls unless it's pretty convincing.

6:58 pm: This will provide updated REAL VOTE information, as it rolls in from S.C. precincts:

6:51 pm: So with only a few minutes left, any last-second predictions? Again -- it's not enough for Obama to win. For him to get the full benefit of victory, he's got to win by a substantial margin. And what will that mean for Bill's role going forward? If voters appear to reject his tone, will we see less of him? Is it even possible for the campaign to control him?

On the trail today, President Clinton let drop that Jesse Jackson won South Carolina, twice. Already he was discounting the import of the contest. Will that be enough to spin away a loss?

6:38 pm: On ABC a few moments ago, George Stephanopoulos said Obama "won the black vote in Nevada -- he had more than 80 percent of the black vote. If he gets that kind of percentage in South Carolina today, he'll win the primary big."

6:28 pm: Douglas makes an interesting point -- the state-level polls (and the national polls) do show Clinton in a very strong place on Feb. 5. But that's the point of momentum -- we see early results having a big impact on states that come later in the process. Ask Rudy Giuliani how that's impacting him these days.

6:15 pm: A few more interesting notes from the exit polls -- the economy is far and away the No. 1 issue about S.C. Democrats -- not surprising in a state that's been battered by lost jobs in the manufacturing/textile sectors. And more than half of today's voters are saying they're looking primarily for a candidate who can "bring about needed change."

6:11 pm: EXIT POLL INFO: Preliminary exit poll results indicate what our smart people are calling a "very large turnout" among African-American voters -- definitely more than 50 percent of voters in South Carolina are black, according to the early numbers, compared to 47 percent in 2004, and 43 percent in 1992. There's also heavy turnout among female voters, who are making up about 6 in 10 S.C. voters.

From ABC polling director Gary Langer: "Two groups that have been heavily courted in the run-up to today's South Carolina Democratic primary – women and African-Americans – are turning out in large numbers today. Preliminary exit poll results indicate that just over half are blacks this year; if that holds in final data later tonight, it would be the highest turnout among African-Americans in any Democratic presidential primary at least since 1984."

6:08 pm: I figured someone would ask what the spread is, after I said Obama has to beat it. . . . Sorry to disappoint, but . . . we'll know it when we see it. If Clinton keeps it close, it's well within the margin of spinnability, as molded by the expectations game. If it's a romp, that could swamp even the best spinmeisters in the business -- including the pros inside Clinton's shop.

5:52 pm: One game tonight -- how well does Edwards need to do to avoid embarrassment? He can't afford another 4 percent showing, like he had in Nevada. Does he exceed expectations if he's in double digits? Maybe -- but would that change anything? Remember, he's unlikely to have conditions this favorable again: He was born in S.C., and won the state in '04. Would second place be an achievement? Surely, yes -- enough for him to go on to Feb. 5. But even then, where's the argument for him going forward? As he is himself acknowledging, he needs to start winning some contests.

5:20 pm: Mark (and others who are interested) -- the Edwards campaign has indeed responded. This from Edwards campaign manager David Bonior: "Seems as though the prohibitive frontrunner sees John Edwards as a threat her becoming the nominee and that’s why they’re resorting to false, underhanded tactics to attack John Edwards’ message of fighting for whose who are too often not heard in Washington."

5:10 pm: It may go without saying, but the most important thing to watch tonight in the exit polls will be the split between black and white voters. In the easiest manner of thinking, a high proportion of black voters means a big night for Obama, a low proportion -- something less than that.

4:57 pm: So the most buzz out there on primary day isn't about the spat between Clinton and Obama -- it's about one between Clinton and Edwards. The Clinton campaign waited for election day (or maybe the day before) to bring out this robocall, slamming Edwards on trade and his work for a hedge fund.

An excerpt, courtesy of ABC's Raelyn Johnson: "Hello, This is the Hillary Clinton for President campaign. Before you vote on Saturday, you should know that John Edwards voted for permanent trade relations with China. That’s right, John Edwards voted for the bill that cost thousands of jobs. Like the ones in the textile mills he talks about so much down here. You should also know that John Edwards made nearly a half a million dollars working for a Wall Street investment fund. A fund that’s been profiting on foreclosing on the homes of families; including 100 homes right here in South Carolina. . . . Can you trust John Edwards? This call is paid for by the Hillary Clinton for President Campaign."

This speaks to a fascinating (if under-covered) dynamic of the closing days of the campaign. Recent polls have shown Obama slipping among white voters in S.C. -- but his support is going to Edwards, not Clinton. A robocall like this suggests that the Clinton campaign sees Edwards as a threat, or at least that his voters are "gettable" for her.

4:45 pm ET: Interesting tidbit, courtesy of ABC's Sarah Amos, who's been covering Bill Clinton: "My message has been 99.9 percent positive for 100 percent of the campaign," the former president said today in South Carolina.

This is a claim that's possible to fact-check (would you count up the words he's spoken over the past year?). But it strains credulity for the former president to claim that he's been almost exclusively -- save for .1 percent of the time -- a force in favor of his wife. Certainly if you look at volumes of news coverage dedicated to what he's said on the trail, it's just not the case -- and Bill Clinton KNOWS that he can drive news coverage with attacks on Barack Obama. You can say what you will about whether the attacks are in bounds -- John Kerry and a host of other Obama defenders think they aren't. But now the president is claiming that the attacks didn't happen?

------------------

Rick Klein from ABC's The Note here, live-blogging the Democratic primary results out of South Carolina. I hope and trust you're up for another fun Saturday night of politics.

Some thoughts as we wait for exit polls and polling results to come in . . .

As I discussed in this morning's Note, Barack Obama has really been boxed in by the successful expectations-setting of the Clinton campaign. He needs not only to win, but to cover the spread -- and to do it with a sufficient number of white voters so that he doesn't become the "black candidate" moving forward. Already, Camp Clinton is stirring up some mischief in Florida, accusing Obama of ignoring a key swing state (one that just happens to vote on Tuesday) -- even though both Clinton and Obama made a pledge not to campaign in Florida, to preserve the special status of four early-voting states. And John Edwards? He needs something dramatic tonight, otherwise the countdown will start on him making a Very Big Decision about the future of his candidacy.

But it's easy to lose sight of the big picture. As Hillary Clinton has learned (to her benefit) of late, a win is a win. Her campaign has NOT written off South Carolina, even though she's spent much of the week elsewhere. And a win by Obama today will ensure that this race will go on for a while.

January 26, 2008 in Vote 2008: Democrats | Permalink | User Comments (104)

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/t/trackback/433071/25504850

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Live-Blogging S.C. Democratic Primary Results by Rick Klein :

User Comments

Rick: Enjoy your blogging and "The Note" immensely. Any reaction yet from the Edwards camp re the last-minute Clinton robocall? Team Clinton's a real piece of work, I must say. Most Democrats I know are rethinking their admiration for them.

Posted by: Mark | Jan 26, 2008 5:16:18 PM

Food for thought: Might the underlying Clinton message regarding the ruthless, scorched-earth treatment of their Democratic competitors be, "See - if we're prepared to behave this way toward our fellow Democrats, just imagine what we would (or wouldn't) be willing to do to our eventual Republican adversary"? Sounds like the recipe for a Pyhrric victory.

Posted by: Mark | Jan 26, 2008 5:29:36 PM

Yes, thanks for this, Rick. Also I agree that many Democrats are doing a major re-think about the Clintons.

99.9% ????

Sheesh.

Posted by: Ward | Jan 26, 2008 5:33:53 PM

Slightly Off-topic note, but I read an article which pointed out that Bill Clinton was disbarred in Arkansas and that the nuances of Impeachment and perjury may be lost on the general public, but since Hillary has stated that Bill would be a valuable advisor, the Repubs will likely push such tidbits to the forefront. "I did not attack Barack Obama" (finger wag for empahasis).

Posted by: Kevin | Jan 26, 2008 5:38:00 PM

If the Clintons distort the words of their fellow Democrats, how can the American public trust them to be straight with us when it comes to policy? My husband and I have a long-standng debate about whether those who voted the war were really duped or were hedging their bets on popular opinion, and I think their low blows of the past few weeks reveal a lot on that subject. While I don't care about at all about Bill's affair with Monica, I think both the Clinton's share that lax attitude towards honesty that we all witnessed during those chaotic times. As clever as the Clintons are, I want someone who will bring dignity and respect to the presidency, not someone who bends the truth to get on top.

Posted by: Jen | Jan 26, 2008 5:44:22 PM

I have always voted democratic my whole life, however, if Hillary get's the nomination this time I will not. I could not bring myself to vote for her after the way her campaign has conducted itself, and it seems a lot of democrats are beginning to feel this way. In today's latimes there's a great op-ed by Jonathan Chait, who points out:

"The Clinton campaign is trying to make it seem as if the complaint is about negativity, and it is pointing out that Obama has criticized Hillary as well. That's what politicians are supposed to do when they compete for votes. But criticism isn't the same thing as lying and sleaze-mongering."

How can you stand behind someone like this? Willfully dishonest, never playing it straight? She, and her political machine, epitomize what we all loathe about politics. However, it is good that the distinction has become so blaringly clear. If, as democrats, we decide to nominate her, we will have wasted our chance to truly do something good for the country, and the world at large, and we won't be able to say we didn't know...I hope we wake up soon, and P.S...don't be afraid to believe that things CAN actually change in politics...

Posted by: Rory McEntee | Jan 26, 2008 6:02:21 PM

I wonder, by how many points must Senator Obama win S.C. (assuming he does) to keep the tag-team Clintons from spinning the results as a "victory" for themselves, as in, "Hooray, we exceeded our own intentionally and misleadingly low-balled expectations!"?

Posted by: Mark | Jan 26, 2008 6:05:14 PM

I think that Edwards needs to stay within about 5-10 points of Hillary in order for him to be credible(assuming Barack is 1st). I think he certainly needs to get into double digits and can't afford anything like the disaster he had in Nevada. Still, I can't see him winning this or any other primary...it's all about Hillary and Obama.

Posted by: Louise | Jan 26, 2008 6:07:55 PM

Strong African-American turnout is good for Obama. The female percentage will be another key to watch. If Obama does well with African-American women, he may be able to argue the gender numbers for Clinton (in 2 states) are not as monolithic as supposed. Then again, Clinton may pull the upset, and a lot of people will scratch their heads again.

Posted by: Kevin | Jan 26, 2008 6:20:12 PM

Given the high turnout among both women and African-Americans in S.C., it'll be interesting to see specifically how African-American women, encompassing both demographics, voted.

Posted by: Mark | Jan 26, 2008 6:22:31 PM

Everybody, loyalty and honesty... when president clinton lied about Monica Lewinski to both the country and his wife, at that point, the question was begged, "If you can't be honest and loyal to your wife, why should we believe you would be honest and loyal to the American People?"

People, we all have love in our hearts.
But close your eyes and ask this question: "Is hillary CLINTON the change we need? Is john EDWARDS the change we need? Or is Barack OBAMA the best example for REAL change? Vote who you want to vote for. But i have a 138 IQ and i'd rather trust myself than what the media tells me. I have my OWN MIND. ;)

Posted by: KHALIL | Jan 26, 2008 6:28:09 PM

I put the spread at Obama
by 10. (Love this live
blogging thing you're
doing Rick. It is
starting to become
must-see internet for me)

Posted by: Andrew | Jan 26, 2008 6:28:14 PM

Doug,
You are way off

Obama will pick up the anti-hillary vote after Edwards drops out next week. It will be a dogfight

Posted by: km | Jan 26, 2008 6:29:32 PM

Or, perhaps, Douglas, you and team Clinton should keep in the mind the lyrics from the Spoon song, "Underdog": You got no time for the messenger \ Got no regard for the thing that you don’t understand \ You got no fear of the underdog \ That’s why you will not survive

Posted by: Mark | Jan 26, 2008 6:29:40 PM

McCain is becoming dishonest in Florida Making those dumb withdrawal claims against Romney, McCain wants to change the subject from the economy to Iraq, McCain is afraid to speak on the economy because he knows nothing on the economy.

Posted by: Ruben | Jan 26, 2008 6:31:27 PM

Douglas - That may be true now, but polls change as momentum swings, and in fact are sometimes wrong (see NH). It is possible that after those 23 contests, the delegate counts could still be quite close (regardless of who wins which states) as there are no winner-takes-all contests. Nothing is inevitable, though you may be correct that Clinton wins the nomination, but it's not likely to be a cakewalk.

Posted by: Kevin | Jan 26, 2008 6:32:27 PM

Dont't blame the people, its the voting sytem that is out of date. Now we blog over the web in a decade we get a real button we can push and then it's a real vote.

Posted by: arnold | Jan 26, 2008 6:35:19 PM

Don't forget Florida has a beauty contest, even though they have no delegates. If Clinton hangs on to that big lead, this could still give her mmentum heading into Super Tuesday. In a State where no one has campaigned, you couldn't ask for a better berometer of measurement....think of Florida as untainted

Posted by: Bill | Jan 26, 2008 6:37:38 PM

Politics ain't bean bag. I want somebody tough, like Hillary, the best. Barack a nice guy, good candidate, but he don't know yet.

Posted by: don | Jan 26, 2008 6:39:42 PM

Controversial candidates like Hillary and Obama are the reason the Republicans keep winning the White house. And they will win it again if one of those two are the nominee .

Posted by: R.J. | Jan 26, 2008 6:40:10 PM

I think people keep forgetting that SC doesn't represent the demographics of our country........Obama should win big, it doesn't take a smart person to figure it out.

Posted by: Bill | Jan 26, 2008 6:42:10 PM

Rueben, Why is it racist if the majority of African-Americans vote for Obama? He won by a landside in Iowa which is predominantely white, and won the delegate count in Nevada by doing well in the rural areas which are predominantely white. Isn't it possible that South Carolinians, Iowans, and Nevadans all share the same concerns and sentiments?

Posted by: onaje | Jan 26, 2008 6:44:23 PM

Just my prediction...since the NH polls were off by 10+pts I think Hillary will only be defeated by 5-7 pts this evening. I'm sure we will see the a small amout of the Bradley effect.

Posted by: Bill | Jan 26, 2008 6:48:04 PM

I really hope people can get beyond gender/race. I was able to vote early here in Illinois today. I voted for the person that I felt could bring about positive change and has the experience to show that they can do it,..Hillary Clinton.

Posted by: JMMDLS | Jan 26, 2008 6:48:22 PM

I think in the national voting the blacks and hispanics will cross cancel each other out and Hillary will win because of the woman voting.

Posted by: Z | Jan 26, 2008 6:50:10 PM

If you can't defend yourself in a fight, how can you defeat the GOP. Bill will become the best defense for this...he's an asset get over it.

Posted by: Bill | Jan 26, 2008 6:53:36 PM

This is only SC the ripple effect will be about as power full as my second shake when I take a leak.

Posted by: Mike | Jan 26, 2008 6:55:03 PM

I'm not sure that a big Obama win is a clear indication that people are rejecting Bill's politics or method of campaigning...I think it's more that he (Obama) will wrap up the African-American vote and that would be the reason for his big win (if he gets it). But I think Hillary's team has spun this in such a way that a loss in SC is expected and this may take some of the big MO from Obama heading in to Super Tuesday. Unless of course Obama wins across the board (whites, women, etc)

Posted by: Louise | Jan 26, 2008 6:57:30 PM

Rick - I'll go out on a limb and predict an 8% win for Obama, with Clinton and Edwards in a close race for third. Wait, that was Iowa! No, I'm gonna stick with that - history repeats itself. (I'd also love to wrong, and Obama beats the spread).

Posted by: Kevin | Jan 26, 2008 6:58:02 PM

We are one nation of comprised 100% of... people.

Each person's vote counts.

Legal emphasis on the physical differences of our people is a regrettable part of our past.

We have progressed far enough as a society that it has become a social evil to poll and report by race and gender.

The media should willingly cease and desist from this type of reporting.

Hats off to Colin Powell, Condi Rice, (in this arena President Bush who appointed them to our top jobs), Tiger Woods (who won't be baited into the old games), Tony Dungy, and many more who either fully or partially have shown a true beyond race posture.

The dream of nation where a people are judged by the content of their character (not their gender or race) is coming into view.

This election makes clear that pollsters who divvy people up by race and gender, and press who report these things, are now hurting the next wave of progress.

The Constitution allows me to say vicious and hurtful things about my fellow citizens, and them to do the same about me.

That doesn't mean that we choose to cuss, or to cuss each other.

By similar fashion, its a matter of basic decency that the press should convene to stop reporting these matters.

The reporting of polls by gender and race primarily serves to stoke old legal and cultural wounds in a beautifully healing nation.

The fact that a woman and a black are leading candidates for the presidency clearly shows the progress that has been achieved to date.

Let us all willingly, and happily, join together to bury the past.

The people, individually, are plenty smart to evaluate the candidates and their policies.

Dear friends in the media, trying to do your job: consider whether Bill Clinton might be right, whether your profession "loves this stuff."

Then please consider whether it is in the best interests of a nation.

Please ask whether your (endless) reporting helps a nation see past the God-given external differences in our bodies, into the God-given differences in our character -- which then result in our policies and our plans for implementing them.

Or does this just help you stir up viewers, readers, and run your career?

The media is having a field day saying the politicians are ambitious and self-serving in what they say. Yes. And you media? Are you ready to contribute restraint and dignity for the betterment of a wonderfully diverse yet united nation?

Posted by: Dwight | Jan 26, 2008 6:58:06 PM

"it's not enough for Obama to win. For him to get the full benefit of victory, he's got to win by a substantial margin."

I think this statement is bogus. A Win is a win - just like for Hillary. No one questioned her small margin wins. And no one should question Barack's victory today, if he wins, either.

Posted by: Bassick | Jan 26, 2008 6:59:20 PM

If this win is huge for Obama, it's a huge hit to his national campaign. If it's a small win, it's still a big hit. Either way he's lost.

Posted by: Bill | Jan 26, 2008 7:00:04 PM

Bill is doing exactly
what he is supposed to
do. He's running cover
for Hillary. Karl Rove
wrote a column this week
saying this is exactly
what Hillary did for Bill
in 1992 - take the hits
so the candidate can stay
above the fray.

Posted by: Andrew | Jan 26, 2008 7:00:38 PM

I think they forgot Obama???

Posted by: Bill | Jan 26, 2008 7:01:19 PM

"We must realize that our party's most powerful weapon is racial tensions. By propounding into the consciousness of the dark races that for centuries they have been oppressed by whites, we can mold them to the program of the Communist Party. In America we will aim for subtle victory. While inflaming the Negro minority against the whites, we will endeavor to instill in the whites a guilt complex for their exploitation of the Negros. We will aid the Negroes to rise in prominence in every walk of life, in the professions and in the world of sports and entertainment. With this prestige, the Negro will be able to intermarry with the whites and begin a process which will deliver America to our cause."

Israel Cohen, A Racial Program for the Twentieth Century, 1912. Also in the Congressional Record, Vol. 103, p. 8559, June 7, 1957

Posted by: siramelek | Jan 26, 2008 7:01:23 PM

Look Hilary won women becuase of all the tears...not one women I know is voting for her...people are just tired of the Clinton lies...My god come on...I myself was a huge Clinton supporter...but I am just sick of the same old thing..its like going in your kitchen and you only have two kinds of food...one can of Bush or one can of Clinton..and you have been eating the same thing for 16 years...I don't know about you...but I have to have something different and fresh. That is my view point and that is how I will vote. Obama. Shame on the Clintons for that attach on Edwards..that was so wrong.

Posted by: heybetho | Jan 26, 2008 7:01:41 PM

Don't fool yourself. If Clinton gets elected this will be the first co-presidency in American history. We built a bridge to the 21st century however crickety. But the last thing we want to do as Americans is go back across that bridge into the nineties. Besides the truth of it is that this is Bill's alimony payment to Hillary. I hope Democrats realize this

Posted by: JT | Jan 26, 2008 7:02:33 PM

Well that was fast...

Posted by: Jake | Jan 26, 2008 7:02:47 PM

Big stunner...WHOOPIE.

This is such a joke and the media will make such a big deal out of 1 state.....

Posted by: Bill | Jan 26, 2008 7:03:00 PM

at least Super Tuesday will mean something...this is a joke

Posted by: Bill | Jan 26, 2008 7:04:28 PM

Another network is saying Obama got 81% of the
black vote but only 24% of the white vote. That
will become a problem.

Posted by: andrew | Jan 26, 2008 7:05:22 PM

I thine George needs to evaluate what huge means......like the nation polls will change over night.....

Posted by: Bill | Jan 26, 2008 7:05:44 PM

WOW - that's a short evening. One item I just recently noticed was exit polling showed that 47% had made up their minds over a month ago. I think that's an interesting story. That would mean nearly half had decided before the race/gender controversy, before NH and NV, even before IA! If that's true....it makes you go Hmmmm.

Posted by: Kevin | Jan 26, 2008 7:07:07 PM

how can people say this shouldn't be about race or isn't about race when blacks vote for the black man and whites vote for the white candidate!??? It is clearly about race.

Posted by: Asst regional mgr | Jan 26, 2008 7:09:40 PM

Once again, the Great Prevaricator (Bill) not-so-subtly plays the race card, all the while claiming *not* to play the race card. Does he think we're all stupid? Implicit in his unsolicited "reminder" that Jesse Jackson won SC's primary twice in years past is the suggestion that, like Jackson, Obama is just "another black candidate" who can't win anywhere that isn't mostly African-American, so (wink, wink) why don't y'all terrified white folks come vote for Hillary. Cripes, what a brazen huckster. As W.C. Fields ruefully noted, there is indeed "a sucker born every minute."

Posted by: Mark | Jan 26, 2008 7:10:17 PM

I am not an Edwards supporter but the Clinton's are real pigs. And the nerve to to vene intimate that Edwards can't be trusted. My Hillary hate grows daily.

Posted by: Jeanie | Jan 26, 2008 7:11:35 PM

Can't everyone see through this?? It's a typical Machiavellian move on the part of the most corrupt duo (the Clintons) in American political history.

They worked to ensure that Shillary would LOSE in S. Carolina so as to compartmentalize Obama into the "Black President" role.

It's racism - on the part of the Clintons and all the mainstream, corrupt Dems.

The Dem party is the most racist party in America. Too bad Obama had to go up against them. He would have been better off running as a Republican,

Posted by: Devious Clintons | Jan 26, 2008 7:12:04 PM

i cried ...dont know somehow felt how can an ordinary person can achieve such great dreams...

Love u obama ...

Posted by: mad for obama | Jan 26, 2008 7:19:45 PM

This is a fantastic night for Hillary if these results hold up. I'm completely serious. While Senator Obama has to be thrilled about substantial victory in South Carolina, if truth be told his margin looks to be in keeping with expectations in this majority black contest. But the real story is the utter collapse of the Edwards campaign. So much for the supposed John Edwards surge. I'm not shocked, really. Although I started off as an Edwards leaner, I can't really say I'm eager to throw my vote away, and a lot of South Carolinians apparently agree. What this all boils down to is that the Democratic contest is -- beyond any lingering doubts -- a two candidate race. And that has to be good news for one Hillary Rodham Clinton.

Posted by: Sparkie | Jan 26, 2008 7:20:11 PM

Hillary Clinton will not win the nomination. Obama will win the nomination and lose BIG in the general election. Democrats need to put up somebody who can reason and think their way to a win, a rational thinking candidate who can debate and win, rather than play on peoples' fears and emotions. Too bad, this won't happen anytime soon, because the Dems are all hand-wringing mealy-mouthed losers, beholden to the Move-On and Code Pink types. The GOP sucks, yes, but the DNC rots.

Posted by: JimminyJillickers | Jan 26, 2008 7:24:14 PM

i cried ...dont know somehow felt how can an ordinary person can achieve such great dreams...

Love u obama ...

Posted by: Mad about obama | Jan 26, 2008 7:33:30 PM

This is a big win for Barack

Posted by: Brando | Jan 26, 2008 7:35:34 PM

Now that Bill has gone fully into the campaign trail for Hillary (using mean methods to win), he has justified a joint campaign attack by the republicans. There is enough dirt for Bill, so much that he will eventually become a burden to Hillary's campaign. Hillary’s temporary glee and happiness "has a tender body that breaks too soon"

Posted by: I love America | Jan 26, 2008 7:37:30 PM

But Rick he won Iowa before the whole 'race' thing blew up...I still think that race is unfortunately going to have a major role in this campaign...and I think the Latino vote is really one that could swing things for Hillary. It may come to a African/American vs. Latino competition to some degree...

Posted by: Louise | Jan 26, 2008 7:42:30 PM

This was looking like a blowout win (50 points?!!?), but it's now looking to equalise. Obama needs 20+ points here, or else Clinton's going to spin this.

Posted by: Neutral | Jan 26, 2008 7:43:40 PM

Mark: You obviously aren't the political junkie I am. I follow politics FOR A LIVING. And the data are indisputable: Edwards and Clinton are MOSTLY competing for the same downscale, working class, blue collar, registered Democratic voters. This group is a fundamental building block of both John Edwards and Hillary Clinton's candidacies. Clinton benefits from an Edwards collapse, and Obama is harmed. Indeed, there are all kinds of rumors making the rounds that Obama has promised Edwards the Attorney Generalship if he remains in the race and Obama wins the White House. Obama NEEDS Edwards to continue to do well enough to siphon votes from Hillary. Unfortunately for Obama, a failure to even place second in the state of his birth effectively ends the candidacy of John Edwards (even if the declines to make this ending official for a while longer).

I just report the facts. Don't shoot the messenger. The math is going to begin to look awfully unfavorable to Barrack Obama after the dust from South Carolina has settled, and the race has solidified into Obama vs Clinton (with Edwards essentially done).

Posted by: Sparkie | Jan 26, 2008 7:44:17 PM

Sparkie, right on the money.

Posted by: Neutral | Jan 26, 2008 7:46:53 PM

I have to disagree with you Rick on not being convinced that Obama has transcended race:

1. He won Iowa
2. He "lost NH and Nevada" by less than 5 points and won more delegates in Nevada
3. He looks to be getting 1/4 of white voters in the South nonetheless
4. He carries the young and upper class vote
5. He carries more independents

Posted by: Brando | Jan 26, 2008 7:50:57 PM

Sparkie...Please you are dreaming...stop with the race card..it is old and played out. Obama has fresh and new ideas for all Americans people love him becuase he is true to himself and to others. When he wins..he will mop the floor with any Rep..he is the onlly one that can.

Posted by: Obama fan | Jan 26, 2008 7:53:08 PM

Brando the young and upper class voters are not the democratic party base...they are working/middle class workers, middle aged voters and women. Hillary seems to be doing better with these groups and I think that will be important.

Posted by: Louise | Jan 26, 2008 7:56:15 PM

Do Obama's results with the white vote in Iowa
and NH reflect the situation since the
Clintons decided to start "painting him
black." Or is Obama's lessened support with
whites tonight just a Southern thing?

Posted by: Andrew | Jan 26, 2008 7:57:40 PM

i cried ...dont know somehow felt how can an ordinary person can achieve such great dreams...

Love u obama ...

Posted by: Mad about obama | Jan 26, 2008 8:00:27 PM

No one is able at this time to say with any certainty or credibility just where Edwards' supporters will go if he drops out. What you present, Sparkie, is a Clinton-favoring best-case scenario/bit of wishful thinking, and is purely an assumption, not a fact. Edwards' supporters may be every bit as disgusted by the transparent Bill and Hillary good cop/bad cop roadshow as Obama's supporters are, and just might desert her in droves. You don't know for sure, and neither do I.

Posted by: Mark | Jan 26, 2008 8:04:28 PM

Turn your attention to Florida? Why, because you're trying to game the system, Hillary? She should be ashamed of herself.

Posted by: Jake | Jan 26, 2008 8:12:49 PM

Louise.... you make a good point. However, you also have to consider electability and how electable is Hillary who literally has a whole group pf voters who vote solely against her. Moreoever, she has little to no independent appeal.

To your other point, Obama's appeal is his branding as a post-race, post-partisan candidate...what other Dem in the last 20 years has garnered such independent and republican support as Obama?

He will be good for America...

Posted by: Brando | Jan 26, 2008 8:19:54 PM

Brando, I'd like to ignore them, and usually do. But in a moderated forum, anything that passes muster can be mistaken for constructive discourse unless it's called out and labeled what it is: racism and bigotry that holds our country back.

Posted by: Jake | Jan 26, 2008 8:26:26 PM

Electability is a key point. We have eight years of red vs. blue politics, a climate which, I'm afraid to say, is primarily of the Democrats' making. The GOP has a hold on the red states (debateable, to be sure) and having Hillary as the nom will make it harder for the Dems to win those states. Obama is seen as more of an independent, which would be crucial in swinging those close red states, whereas having Hillary as the nom would likely have the effect of causing voters in those states dig in.

No, red vs. blue isn't a certainty, but it's worth considering.

The racial undertones on this forum are unsettling. Every black candidate is not the same as every other black candidate, just like every white isn't the same as every white. We should be looking at the issues, or go back to the 1800s.

Posted by: Neutral | Jan 26, 2008 8:28:43 PM

So in other words, the Democratic race may come down to a battle for the hearts and minds, not so much of whites or African-Americans, but of Latinos! Wow. Never a dull moment. (And I second the motion: racists, take a hike.)

Posted by: Mark | Jan 26, 2008 8:35:26 PM

I think Edwards getting out of the race would benefit Barack. The NY Times is reporting that "60 percent of the voters said that [Bill] Clinton’s campaigning was important in how they decided to vote – and of those, 47 percent voted for Mr. Obama while only 38 percent voted for Mrs. Clinton. And 14 percent went for Mr. Edwards."

If Edwards bails, that's a significant chunk of Anyone But Clinton voters jumping to Obama and would close several gaps on Super Tuesday.

P.S. Thanks for calling out the bigots, Rick. Free speech is free speech, but free doesn't make it tasteful or right.

Posted by: Jake | Jan 26, 2008 8:36:13 PM

Good point about Latino voters in South Carolina Rick. Question- how will Obama's carrying of the higher income voters effect his standing in states like CA and NY?

Posted by: Brando | Jan 26, 2008 8:36:22 PM

I meant California

Posted by: Brando | Jan 26, 2008 8:36:52 PM

Rick, do you think that the current 27-point lead is going to be substantial enough to swing momentum in the Super Tuesday states?

Posted by: Neutral | Jan 26, 2008 8:37:45 PM

Remember the "good old days," pre-Clinton, when we didn't play the red states vs. blue states game? When the 2 parties actually worked together on solving problems, not each party all voting the same way? Before politicians took po