the phrase "southern whites".

vote despite running against two white candidates. That says a lot, especially given both that he soundly beat a white "native son" who won the state last time and whites outnumber blacks two to one in SC. BTW as I am typing this I am also watching Obama's victory speach and the audience is largely white.

'speech'. Unless it's "to each his speach." Jeasus.

http://mauberly.blogspot.com/

and "speach" is spelled "speach". And Jeasus is spelled Charlie.

Go pick on Ian. Or have another.

Jeasus is my width ness.

lighten up, it's Miller time:-)

_{1."George Washington did not cross the Delaware for Capitalism," -Shmuley Boteach.
2.The Dems haven't punished the GOP enough, so you're going to reward the Republicans?}

or

There was no "spelling" before some moron codifed the english language in a very stupid dictionary...

Cough and plough indeed!

The "Ofay" factor is not to be ignored.

Forget it, Jake - it's AmnesiaTown

the race card just as much when it suits him.

Barack Obama is walking a tricky racial line, trying to excite black support in the South without getting tagged as "the black candidate" and scaring off anybody else.

At a spaghetti dinner in the basement of a black church this week, he told a cheering crowd the civil rights movement started from the bottom up, with marches and boycotts. "That's how change comes," he said, linking black civil rights to his own campaign slogan. Source

You got your dog whistles mixed up.

are playing as a 'win' for Hillary in the sense that she did well with the 'white' vote. You think race is a factor? You bet. You think gender is a factor? You bet. You think age is a factor? You bet.

All in play all the time in a McCain-Obama-Hillary universe.

Women vote
older women vote
blacks don't vote
young people don't vote

That is in play in this election as well.

If she wins, be prepared for huge giveaways to Big Crochet.

n/t

You're saying a loss would have been strategically preferable for Obama? You're veering dangerously close to Giuliani territory with that sort of thinking.

Always amazing to see conservatives like Rudy on Prozac.

...that Obama won South Carolina. I think Hillary all but conceded the state so she could spin it her way. So yes, you often win by losing.

Absolutely right--a few months ago, when Clinton was up by 30 points in SC and had overwhelming support from African-Americans, commentators left and right were nevertheless predicting a commanding 2:1, 28% margin victory by Obama. Clinton's previous two victories gave no one pause. Polls showing a tight race and a perilous drop in Obama's white support over the last week were unanimously ignored as well. Yes, no one was surprised.

You're probably right in that it was Clinton's plan all along to engineer a stunning turnabout in SC and insult a core constituency in the process. Failing to deliver the knockout punch to her opponent--"he lost by double digits even when half the voters were black?"--was by far the smartest play.

...what people were saying two months ago and what they were saying last week are two different things.

Obama gained among black voters when Iowa showed that he could win among non-black voters. Iowa also showed the Clinton camp that they could not win on name recognition alone. So they consciously decided to turn Obama into Jesse Jackson, knowing full well there are more non-black women and latinos in the Democratic party than blacks.

Obama won South Carolina strictly because of his overwhelming support among blacks. This is a fact that the Hillaryites will not let you forget anytime soon. Did they successfully lock Obama into this box? I really don't know. We will soon see.

The risk her campaign is taking is pretty bold. Yes, they are pissing off a key Democratic constituency, and they are doing so with the assumption that black voters have no place to go, and will either support Hillary in the general or stay home and play backgammon. Are they right? I don't know.

I understand you're trying to make the point the Clintons' strategy was and will be to paint Obama as the black candidate, and that it may succeed. But for a Clinton loss to be a strategic win--does that mean a Clinton -win- would have been a strategic loss? I assume so, because you said you feared this outcome "is what they want".

Of course, if Clinton had won, Obama would have probably been destroyed. So are you saying that no matter if Clinton lost or won, it's a strategic win? If so, Obama never had a chance, and there's no sense in debating. If you think an Obama loss would have been better for him, I don't know how to respond.

I'm guessing what you're trying to say is that Clinton calculated she was losing and decided to make the best of it by painting Obama as the black candidate, expecting the party would align behind her after the nomination. Perhaps she can spin this to her advantage, yes. She could ultimately parlay this loss into a win. But the phrase "strategic win" has a different connotation than, say, "salvage a victory down the road".

...without significant white support is a loss. He has to do better, or he won't win outside the South. Beyond that, you guessed right. Bill clinton's remarks and the location of Hillary's speech seems to bear my notion out.

BTW, a Clinton win in SC would be a tactical win that ensured a strategic win.

Edwards 43
Clinton 29
Obama 27

Let's say Edwards vote splits evenly. Then Obama gets 48%. That is significant support from whites.

You seem to be saying Clinton wins whether she wins or loses. From your other comments I'm figuring it's not wishful thinking, so I guess it's paranoia.

...caucus results seems to indicate that Edwards voters prefer Hillary to Obama. I won't say "Bradley" if you wont, but Obama must (must, must, must) improve his standing with whites and latinos if he wants to win. Yes, some key endorsements that came out today will help him. He's going to have to addres Latino crowds soon and allay their deep fears of what a black president will bring. The Clintons are hoping it's too late for that, and it may well be.

The bottom line about this win/ lose business is that the Clinton strategy is clearly to paint Obama as the "black" candidate, and therefore, a niche candidate. The demographics of Obama's vote can be of assistance if they spin it properly. A quarter of the white vote is decent in a three way race for a black man, especially against two white opponents, but South Carolina's Democrats are more than 50% black; if he gets a quarter of the white vote in non-southern states, he will get creamed. So what do you think the Clintons' strategy will be now? You got it: hold Obama's share of the white vote to no more than 30%. With this in mind, you have not heard the last of the "Black Boogie Man" by far.

It might work with Latinos (I have no way of guessing, having been out of CA for 12 years now), and it will probably work in some very, very Red states. Everywhere else, it will backfire.

That's what this election is all about. Everytime the media or DC insiders tell us how it's going to be, the voters say "Guess again, assholes". Voters (in both parties) are sick of not getting any respect. Voter turnouts are way, way up (on the Dem side), and it's not because politics has all of a sudden become attractive or respectable. Absolutely the opposite.

I think you can throw out all the conventional wisdom out the window on this one. Close to half the voters in this cycle will be people who have never voted before.

is not getting the complexity of these stories right. It was no accident when Bill said Obama is just like Jesse Jackson. That was absolutely not a fair statement, but it will resonate. I got to look at the polls a bit, but this stuff that comes out of the candidates mouths are not off the cuff. They are very very carefully calibrated. The emphasis on how well Obama does with blacks if playing the race card for sure.

Adding the Kennedy clan to the mix is really confusing here, there is something really going on in the power centers right now of the Democrat party. Remember it was the kennedys that swung the convention in 1968 to Humphrey and Robert was killed. Humphrey no way had the delegate count in that convention, and it was the Kennedy's that locked out anti humphrey delegates. They have real clout in conventions even today, so this is a really interesting shake up, and I think that Billary crossed the line. Bill was said to have called kennedy to stop the whole thing and was verbally rebuked.

Or Hillary's "concession" speech (which was four words inserted into her stump speach).

I think Sanchez is supporting Hillary. At least MSNBC had a CA rep named Sanchez on, whose message was that SC votes based on race, but CA votes based on gender.

"Go to hell, Obama". Were those Clinton's concession 4 words? :)

"I congratulate Senator Obama, and thank all the great people of SC who welcomed us into their homes blah blah blah".

Bill's earlier speech (in Missouri) was completely deranged. Really. "If I knew what I know..."? And going on and on about his Presidential library? If they want to go on, they need to seriously regroup and rethink. But apparently they just want to ignore SC and go on with their schtick (that clearly schtunk).

editted to prevent maub-rage

short but tart :-)

_{1."George Washington did not cross the Delaware for Capitalism," -Shmuley Boteach.
2.The Dems haven't punished the GOP enough, so you're going to reward the Republicans?}

they'd probably have done better if they'd lost NH, and booted the creeps like Mark Penn.

only wish.

...has already endorsed Obama (I don't know how to post links on this site), but I wouldn't be surprised if LORETTA Sanchez endorsed Hillary. Two sisters, representing very different districts, often vote in very differnt ways.

... is completely boxed in. I agree with this.

There is always Dick Cheney. He has more knowledge of how to manipulate and manage the executive branch than anyone alive, and he has the most impressive resume.

How about someone with a legislative track record? There is always John Kerry. Many more years in the senate than Hillary or Barack combined.

There are tons of politicians with better resumes than Obama, but people aren't flocking to hear them speak. Nor is Obama dishing out some cult mesmerism as Larry Johnson suggests. He's saying things people want to hear that have practical meaning for their lives. I really doubt that is going to die out in April, just because the press decides Obama is nothing but a fairy tale.

I think experience is critical. Dick Cheney? Not so much.

Barak makes it big with style points, to be sure. But I think Larry is right that its awfully hard to stretch that without more behind it.

I have a pretty good immunization against talented people expert at selling themselves. I'm the man behind the curtain, so to speak. I'm impressed with Barak's skills. He's real good. I don't see much else there. I certainly could be wrong about that. But, as that's the way I see it, and that I also think artful, experienced maneuvering will be required of the next Prez to get anything done in what resembles forward motion, Barak is my last choice of the big three.

If Barak gets the nomination _and_ converts millions more to think he is the one, to believe, that he's the one, then I guess he is. But thats what it will take given the road he's on. IMHO, of course.

...that's how much experience Abraham Lincoln had in elected office. FDR had four years as Governor of New York, "Uncle Teddy" had been Governor for about two years, and Andrew Jackson was new to elected office. So maybe they were bad choices as well.

I also hear the people who built the Titanic had tons of experience.

You compare Barak to FDR, Teddy, and "Old Hickory" - the landscape of contemporary politics to the mid to late nineteenth and early to mid twentieth centuries - and try to draw an inference by comparing guys who build boats to those that pilot them. Damn, got me again.

...that the Titanic received damage that many boats have survived, in fact most boats. Its poor construction and design was the createst culprit in the disaster. Its sister ship --- R.M.S. Olympic-- was retired after less than a decade of service for this reason. Don't just blame the captain and crew.

If experience is the most important factor, Bill Richardson should have won the Democratic nomination by half a continent. So why didn't he? Dodd and Biden have experience all over Hillary, Obama, and Edwards combined. So why have they dropped out too? There are qualities greater than experience like intelligence, fortitude,strength of character and ability and willingness to learn, I'm not saying any candidate I back necessarily embodies these qualities, but I'll take them over obsessive "experience" any day and sorry, I don't count Hillary's twelve years as first lady of Arkansas and eight years as U.S. first lady as "experience." Try again.

If you want a better metaphor, the Colonel Blimps who planned Gallipoli had several hundred years of combined military experience, the same for Dieppe, and Vietnam, and Iraq. Gerald Ford had a quarter century of political experience, we saw how that turned out. Papa Bush had a great resume, too. As Perot said: "You're right, george, I have no experience running up four trillion dollars in debt."

... was inapt, regardless of your boatswains knowledge.

Of all the qualities you cite only experience can be measured, save intelligence, which is debatable. (no, thx)

But most of all you are confused over what I said and what you heard. Your intelligence, fortitude, strength of character, ability and willingness to learn have completely failed you for lack of experience that would have afforded you wisdom in choosing your battles.

...like an HR manager. When you hire someone (which is what we're doing here) you make judgement calls. You look for little things that tell you that they will do a good job, and you for the love for all that's to be cherished, don't hire anybody you feel incomfortable with.

If experience was the acme of arbiters, we wouldn't have elected Jackson, Lincoln, T.R., Wilson, FDR, or Kennedy. Would our country be better?

Only you have used the word 'most'.

This is tiresome now. You've repeatedly played the same lick, out of time. Never caught the groove. It'd work well in the right song.

Gotta go.

Eisenhower had no experience at all; that whole ww2 thing was just, you know, giving orders and everything you say happens.

Forget it, Jake - it's AmnesiaTown

Primaries are not the playoffs. Primaries are a skills competition.

On the downside, someone can win the primaries who can't really compete in the general (and the other side of that is that way too often, Dems have used "electability" as their prime criteria and ended up with presentable, bland and boring). On the upside, you're not field testing the GOP's weaponry for them and you're not fracturing the party.

Larry seems to think Clinton's haven't said anything unfair. Well, Bill Clinton is extraordinarily popular among blacks, but blacks have been offended by what he's said (many whites, too). IOW, they're not offended by Bill Clinton, and they're not offended that he's competing with a black man, they're offended by how he's doing it. He's not fighting the good fight, he's just fighting when he really shouldn't be.

And I'm sure there has never been a primary candidate about whom it was not said that there was something in their past that would bring them down. The number of times that's turned out to be true is vastly smaller than the number of times a candidate has gone down because of current behavior.

... I agree with Larry that the Clintons have not been too over the top. That others think so and feel offended is to be expected, I guess. Barak is a candidate that stirs emotions, on several levels. People get attached to the guy for reasons of their own. And, I suppose that is the point. That's what Barak has going for him, a charisma the brings people to him in a personal way. That's good, no doubt about it.

But it is also particularly susceptible to the taint, to be sullied fairly or unfairly until the shiny new is rubbed right off. Die-hards scream and hang on - end of momentum and mandate.

I don't know what Barak may have hidden in the closet. Maybe not much of anything. But if he does we'll all know about it soon enough.

I'm not entirely sure of your point about the primaries. I see it as both. Skills because a lack of them will surely show, and are required in any heads-up competition. Playoffs because its winner take all at the end of a long, arduous run that witnesses wins, defeats, injuries, requires depth and a solid machine/organization.

At any rate, Larry's taking bets if you're up for it. ;)

although I can certainly see why the Republican apparatus hopes like hell that Hilary Clinton wins the nomination because her takedown, while bloody, would be obscenely easy. Barack Obama, on the other hand, has something no other candidate on either side of the fence can command. He has charisma.

The thing about personal charisma is that you can't fake it.

People like to be around an individual with charisma. They want to be like a person with charisma. Flaws? Everybody has flaws. Many leaders have flaws. If you have charisma, no matter what, and for better or worse, you're a born leader.

Charisma is immune to attack. It cannot be destroyed. Anybody who even tries to rip at the fabric of charisma does so at their peril because it's not about politics, it's about enchantment.

It's interesting that the US seems to have been remarkably devoid of charismatic presidents. I suppose JFK was the last one.

The word charisma (from the Greek word χάρισμα (kharisma), "gift" or "divine favor," from kharizesthai, "to favor," from kharis, "favor": see also charism, Charis) refers to a rare trait found in certain human personalities usually including extreme charm and a 'magnetic' quality of personality and/or appearance along with innate and powerfully sophisticated personal communicability and persuasiveness. Wiki

He may be charismatic, but is he tough enough?
How do Clinton and Obama compare on other skills?

Six qualities every great leader needs

1. Integrity
2. A deep understanding of the business
3. Consistency
4. Willingness to admit a mistake
5. The ability to listen
6. Decisiveness

Just the facts please, no mudslinging.

but I think you can only determine the degrees of this skill set through the rear view mirror. Until either H Clinton or B Obama have a turn at the wheel, it's difficult to tell. If, as many are doing, we view "the Clintons" as the candidate, then review becomes simpler. A big plus score on # 2, for instance and total failure on # 4.

What do you mean by "tough" and how tough is "tough enough"?

how tough is "tough enough"? Semantics sometimes lead to nowhere.

Tough as in # 6 decisiveness. I believe Clinton is a better decision maker than Obama. Obama's tendency to try and please everyone (a trait of charisma) may interfere with his ability to make a firm decision.

You'll remember Pierre Trudeau was definitely the most charismatic of leaders. While he certainly could be accused of many failings, I don't think the need to please others ever guided his decision making.

When I read "Charisma and contradictions", The legacy of Pierre Elliott Trudeau, I honestly couldn't make a comparison to Obama's charisma. Obama's charisma is more folksy, if you will, whereas Trudeau's is difficult to define. In any case, what I remember most about Trudeau is his arrogance, in addition to his positive characteristics. But definitely not his charisma.

That said, there is ample evidence of Obama's indecisiveness when looking at his record in the Illinois Legislature.

I think Obama explained specific votes pretty well in the debates. I recall his mentioning one bill which he sponsored and had worked to bring forward, but he didn't cast the vote because of the hash up of the original concept and all the add-ons. Frankly, I don't understand how good legislation ever makes it past the floor in the Amercan system, where items are piled on within the same bills.

I like some of the reader responses At the link you cited. For instance, reader Eric 2.65 posted: "It is a tactic perfected by Karl Rove: work with the legislature to add unconstitutional or otherwise unacceptale provisions (poison pills) so that later on a smear campaign can be waged against those who might be tempted not to go along and swallow.

Bob Rennick observed: "reason for a “Present” vote is that bills are frequently poorly worded, mis-named, ill conceived, designed for “gotcha” politics, and/or counter-productive to the true goals "

Finally, it seems to me the world has had its belly full of US presidential "deciveness" of late. The willingness to make a prompt decision is no indicator of the ability to make the correct one.

By the way, I feel uncomfortable in "defending" Obama. Truth to tell, I find the entire slate of US candidates for both sides to be politically astute but intellectually and culturally deprived - or at least their "handlers" advise them to act that way. If I had to vote for any one of them, I think I'd decisively find a way to vote "present".

Notwithstanding limitiations, all the US candidates are shining lights compared to our terrible Canadian choices. Presently, the most we can hope for is to elect a government that will keep the lights on and not move the furniture around too much.

eom

Latest poll on a significant Western swing state...

Colorado Poll
From the Denver Post/Mason-Dixon:

Dems: Obama 34, Clinton 32, Edwards 17

Colorado is 4% African-American, 20% Hispanic -- the fourth largest Western state after California, Washington, and Arizona.

Also note that Ted Kennedy's endorsement of Obama may help Hispanic turnout for Obama now.

and basically agree with each of the points in brodix's post. I'm all for empowering blacks and I support B.O. for doing so. But I don't want to vote for him because of his links to status quo groups like the DLC. He's too manufactured and out of nowhere for me to be comfortable with him. I'd vote for Edwards even though his platform needs more planks in it. American needs a good lawyer.