Tim-
I am looking at the statistic which shows Obama winning 4 to 1 among black voters. If that’s not significant, I don’t know what is. In particular, I find it interesting because it appears that the Clinton machine seems to have made a major strategy miscalculation. During the past few weeks they have proceeded to interject the issue of race into the discussion and in so doing, they seem to have polarized Democratic voters along this axis – a bad strategy in South Carolina. Looking at the under 30 statistic you cited, I don’t see it varying much from the composite statistics. When you look at black voters, who as a group voted 80% for Obama, the conclusion is much more profound in terms of a candidates and a specific (important) demographic. To me there is no way to conclude that this was not ‘a black thing’ as you put it.

Tim, you have to ask yourself why it is that you are defending this notion of race with your high school statistical analysis. There is no such thing as race. It is simply a farcical pretext. A mirage. You used ~200 words to defend nothing. Why do you think you did/do that? What kind of person are you? Do you know who you are or what you stand for? Why don’t you talk about that. It MIGHT be more engaging. Since, ultimately, regardless of skin color, people tend to vote based on what they believe, whether well-informed or not, to be their best INTEREST! Isn’t that a simple and reasonable enough explanation?

While it’s true the Clintons attempted to make South Carolina a ‘Black thing’ they underestimated both the intellect and evolution of this southern state. And everyone of any color hates liars. That Clinton inspired division and racial references were mortifying to the Democratic party. Obama deserved that big win and will hopefully win the nomination.

If Hillary’s lost the cornerstone of the Democratic party, African American votes because of the evil tactics they employed on Obama, how will she fare in the national vote if she pisses off the same group by beating Obama? As far as I’m concerned, either the Democratic party wins the White House with Obama OR say hello to president McCain! I know I’d never vote for George Bush, so why would I vote for two George Bushes (Lady MacBeth and MacBeth)? The Clintons have proven more Republican in the past week than Carl Rove himself.

Go Obama! (Or anyone else).

Straight up, too many former Clinton supporter have turned against her for the slimy tactics she employed. The Clintons have always relied on the black vote, and they did launch a racist campaign. Why shouldn’t black voters turn on the Clintons?

In 1992, Democrats backed Bill Clinton because he was the only Democrat willing to do whatever it takes to win the Presidency. Now, the nation is in crisis and needs a great deal more. Obama talks like a President and offers a break from the past. If the country wanted real experience and a care-taker administration, Joe Biden would have been the logical choice.

In response to AnyOneButTheClintons:

When Hillary and Obama declared their candidacy last year, I had a hard time deciding who to support. I had high regard for the Clinton’s and the economic promise of Bill Clinton’s presidency. On the other side, I liked Obama because I felt that his leadership qualities are needed in today’s society. It was a hard decision, but by October I decided to support Obama and I was planning to vote for Clinton in the general election if she won the nomination. Now after all the dirty tactics, changing campaign themes, good cop-bad cop Clinton smackdown of Obama, I refuse to vote for Hillary. If she is up against McCain, I’ll vote for him or not vote at all.

Go Obama or Edwards (or McCain)

Hillary did not lose to Obama. Bush has been so very bad that voters are throwing the baby out with the wash. For years the media has enjoyed trashing Hillary. Why?
Unlike previous first ladies she used her education, knowledge and background to get involved in areas not normally done by a first lady. She did not stay in the kitchen an bake cookies. Now when Obama is elected, Michelle will not stay in the kitchen either. Today, this will be acceptable. Unfortunately, this was not the case for Hillary. In continuing her ways, she has changed the image of a first lady forever. Yes Hillary knows how to make changes. Always has and always will. When you vote, ask yourself: why is it that Hillary has always been portrayed in a negative manner. You will discover that the answer is simple. She is a very strong lady and this was not desirable in her time as first lady. Consequently, she has not being able to shake off the negative image that the media put on her. Now we can only HOPE that
Sen. Obama can do more than give motivational speeches. We can only HOPE that the Change he will make be for the better. (After Bush, I will concede that the odds are in his favor.) Never the less, his lack of experience has me worried. Today, our country is faced with many serious problems that need immediate attention. How much damage will be done while Sen. Obama is learning the huge responsibilities of being a president? Time will tell as his charm and speaking abilities will get him elected. So, I am HOPING he will be successful.

Phyllis-
I don’t the distaste for Hillary has anything to do with whether she baked cookies or not, nor do I think it is because of some false image of strength. I think people are turned off because the Clintons, more than anything else, represent blind unchecked ambition; they are willing to subordinate principles and values to their powerlust and megalomania. Maybe they have some good ideas (or not), but ultimately people are looking for leadership which can only be demonstrated through tests of character. The campaign trail has been once such test, and the Clintons have failed. Good riddance.

Micah-
I agree with your analysis of race. It has no real meaning in the physical sense, but it is an idea that people identify very strongly with. Its importance in shaping how people view the world should not be discounted. Whether Tim is propagating a false belief by bringing it up is another issue, but I think he generally reports on race insofar as it is important to other people and so should be given some credit.

In response to Phyllis.

When the world found out that Bill Clinton was having an affair with Monica Lewinsky, people felt sorry for Hillary. The fact that she stayed with the man, even though he is a DOG, may appear to some as the acts of a strong, dedicated woman. However, others though see it for what it was, the act of a desperate woman with no self-esteem and no courage, without the ability to be willing to change her situation for the better. I would love to have a woman be president of the United States, just not THIS woman. Hillary’s recent actions and demands for special treatment are proof enough for me that, if she’s elected, NOTHING will change in Washington.
I truly hope Americans have the courage and balls (or really big ovaries) to give Barack Obama a chance.
YES WE CAN!!!

Ole,

Would you care to expand on your choice of ‘blind’ to modify ambition, which I know you think is an honorable trait? By categorizing the Clinton’s as blind, you retain the sanctity of your conservative bent and manage to cast the Clintons in a negative light. All in one fell swoop. Nicely done.

If the Clintons have been blind, as you allude, in their ambition, they’ve managed to do a pretty good job of it. Blind would seem to denote stumbling and bumbling and I doubt you could characterize them, personal lives notwithstanding, as bumblers.

I side with Phyllis. There’s a lot of sexism at work here, comments posted herein support that contention. Just as there’s an element of racism, as you mentioned, in how people look at Obama. It can’t be denied. It IS. It/they are the 800 pound gorilla in the room that no one will acknowledge. And until they do, it will continue to poop in the corner.

I know how you loathe the use of labels and can imagine you cringing as you read this, but the fact that they actually have relevance would seem to justify their existence. A large segment of the population do NOT like the Bushs. You can call them Libs. A large segment of the population do not like the Clintons. You can call them Cons. AND, a large segment of the population does NOT think a woman should govern. AND a large segment of the population does not think Blacks should govern. You can call them whatever you want, but they exist. Given that, polarization would seem to follow. It is the natural order of things in a flawed society.

Ole,

By the by, you wouldn’t happen to have some examples of 20-20 ambition, would you? Just for comparison purposes. Tnx.

Big win for Obama,The Democratic party and South Carolina. The demographics of Obamas win show change is coming a generation is emerging thats tired of the ststus quo and ready to reject gutter politics for hope, change, and unity.

It’s interesting reading the ignorance of some of these comments on this site and others. People seem to think the politics can be won by giving hugs and commenting on how awesome the other candidate is. While we’re at it, lets all dance to the tune of world peace.

Let’s all sing kumbaya and learn to love each other.

I don’t know what planet you think you’re living in, but if you want something you have to fight for it.

I don’t think any of Clinton’s tactics have been dirty, nor have they been out of line. To describe Hillary’s tactics as “slimy” is stupid and based on innate political stupdidity predicated on a subconcious resentment of having a woman in power (the latter might sound like feminist propoganda, but I’m a college-educated male joining the Marine Corp as an officer). Politics is a dirty business, if you’re not up to it, then you shouldn’t be running this country, because lord knows you’ll be having to deal with dirtier leaders and tactics in the world.

And to the people who have “suddenly” been hit with an epiphany of how despicable the Clintons are, following the series of events leading up to the South Carolina primary, and pledge to vote for the other party than vote for Clinton should she get the nomination, I say, find a better, more logical reason to vote than voting based on an emotional reaction.

This country isn’t run by making rash emotional decisions, therefore your choice to lead our country shouldn’t be made with the same mistake. Let’s face it, we live in a crazy world, we need someone that is up to the challenge, that understands that you have to fight for what you believe in. You can’t solve the problems of the world with hugs and kisses, nor can you feed the hungry people of this country with words.

So as long as Hillary can show me that she has the resolve to fight for this country, that she’s not afraid to get dirty for something she believes in, then I’m voting for her.

Hmm, this calls from a change in strategy for the Clinton machine. Start shedding some more tears, Hillary!

frustrated,

Your poopy attitude is exactly what is being rebuked, and it’s the same antagonistic attitude of Bush’s foreign policy…and Clinton’s. Hillary hasn’t fought SQUAT in the senate, she has rolled over to vote with the republicans.

Time to do something different.

Frustrated,

Tnx and good luck in Gyrene Land. Ole will be pleased.

The comment was actually directed at you “blood for oil olay” and not the writer of the piece. The greeting was in errant. You should feel free to respond as if it were directed at you.

Frustrated, I take my hat off to you and thank you for your willingness to serve this country. It is because of the courage of people like you that we are able to sit comfortably in front of our computers and wax political here. You raise a good point that politics is an ugly game and in order to win, one must get in the dirt. At the same time, I do not like Hillary Clinton and if she were to be elected, I would seriously consider moving back to Ireland. My dislike for her has nothing to do with her being a strong woman (having had one as a mother and currently dating a police officer, I have nothing but respect for strong women). I simply do not trust her and I don’t think she really believes in anything. When she speaks at the debates or talk shows, everything comes out like a laundry list of talking points shrouded behind that fake plastic smile and laugh. There never seems to be anything genuine or real coming from her. Add onto that her lack of candidness with the media and I think many become turned off by her. It’s her as a person that people seem to dislike, not her as a woman.

As a 22 year-old African-American I cannot wait until my Caucasian & Latino friends get to vote on Feb. 5th. It’s no secret that people like to support people who look like them but this is ridiculous. This man has no experience–would you let a 3rd-year med student do open-heart surgery on you…NO. This means political war and I have distanced myself from some of my family who blindly support Obama because he is black. My city (Memphis) does the same thing—I guess some people love mayors that do nothing as a city declines, but my Mom & Dad got a clue and moved to the county, outside of city limits. I am currently in grad school and I want all you Obama supporters to email me at bhubbar@yahoo.com after Feb. 5 so I can gloat.

Micah-
It looks like I did respond to it. I agree that race doesn’t have any physical meaning, but all sorts of people give it meaning by believing in it. I don’t believe that the concept of God has a physical meaning, nevertheless enough people identify with a concept called God, so in order to relate to them, I have to be willing to at least consider how the concept of God affects their perspective(s). Likewise, people identify with race. Personally, it has no bearing on how I think about a candidate, a policy, etc. To other people, it is one of the most important issues. I think this is unfortunate, but that’s how it is. In this particular case, I thought it was interesting that the Clinton’s have repeatedly returned to race as an important issue. My point was that since race was an issue that the Clintons chose to focus on, it is ironic that black voters, who in the past have identified with race as an important issue, rejected the Clintons.

Brandon H.,

Your comparison of politics with medicine is completely off. To say the least, there is a world of difference between the physical sciences and social science. Moreover, who said people voted for Obama because he is black? I thought the argument was that he wasn’t black enough for people to vote for him sheerly on the basis of race! He had to show and prove himself to earn the vote of the black voters. Please don’t play puppet at the hands of your candidate. It is clear the Clintons are your choice because you sound like their mouthpiece.

All the best, but believe it or not, we have an extraordinary candidate who is daring to play politics differently.

Frustrated,Clintonites like you hurt the Democratic party by saying those who are against your candidate are stupid and ignorant of the process.The people who want to keep the Bush-Clinton dynasty going,and support it are the real fools. America is worse after 20 years of Bush-Clinton. The only way to have better times is to break the strangiehold.

Many people have mentioned Senator Obama’s “lack of experience” to be worrisome, but Senator Obama has 11 years of elected experience to Hillary’s 7. A presidency is about more than just one person. Obama understands that, which is why he would surround himself with the very best cabinet members America has to offer.

It’s easy to support Hillary because we know her well, but please consider her judgement. Along with Bush and Cheney, she voted for this war in Iraq. She didn’t even read the National Intelligence Estimate first. How did her experience help her then?

As first lady, she led the movement to try to provide healthcare for all Americans, yet in 2008 millions of us are still not covered. How did her experience help her then?

Being “ready” on day one means nothing if you lack sound judgement on day one.

Wait a minute, black people can vote?

The Clintons have tremendous experience in the art and science of dishonesty, which is how they are able to do it so effortlessly.

NEO-LIB CLINTONS FEEL BLACK SUFFERING AND SOLEMNLY PROMISE UTOPIA

Neo-Lib Clintons ever so cleverly love the blacks, when they desperately need to lure them for their votes; otherwise they are ever so cleverly ignored. It is the pretentious tactic that has worked over and over again.

But now there is Obama who mocks and rebukes the Clinton crooks; and there is Ron Paul, who never plays tricks and never tells lies.

So who shall they cry out for, the one they can trust or the one again offering free lunches?

dont forget the 8 years she spent in the white house thats experince to and that with her 7 as a sen.is 15 years plus the health care program she tried to pass was vetoed by congress and she was only a first lady then and nearly got past think what she could do as president every thats voting for obama are either black or stupid young mtv gen kids who think they rather be black the white hillary has some very good ideals for this country obama has not done beans and he wont.