BS: South Carolina - Whole new ballgame

Subject: BS: South Carolina - Whole new ballgame
From: Riginslinger
Date: 09 Jan 08 - 08:05 AM

Huckabee is promising to put an end to the "Anchor Babie" situation in America. That ought to win big for him in South Carolina.

Subject: RE: BS: South Carolina - Whole new ballgame
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 09 Jan 08 - 08:48 AM

Translation?

Subject: RE: BS: South Carolina - Whole new ballgame
From: Donuel
Date: 09 Jan 08 - 08:54 AM

Edwards is everything good about the 1960s
He surely is a home town favorite.
When the dust settles we may still have no clear front runner.

Subject: RE: BS: South Carolina - Whole new ballgame
From: Riginslinger
Date: 09 Jan 08 - 09:07 AM

From the Washinton Times

Mike Huckabee wants to amend the Constitution to prevent children born in the U.S. to illegal aliens from automatically becoming American citizens, according to his top immigration surrogate — a radical step no other major presidential candidate has embraced.

Subject: RE: BS: South Carolina - Whole new ballgame
From: Rapparee
Date: 09 Jan 08 - 09:11 AM

Good luck to him on that, assuming he's nominated...and THAT'S not at all certain at this point.

Subject: RE: BS: South Carolina - Whole new ballgame
From: Jeri
Date: 09 Jan 08 - 09:25 AM

He said that was definitely NOT his suggestion when I heard him interviewed yesterday. Flip-flop or reporting malfunction? (Dem Party website)

Subject: RE: BS: South Carolina - Whole new ballgame
From: Riginslinger
Date: 09 Jan 08 - 10:19 AM

I think it's like a weather balloon. It can float around out there and people who don't look into things much--I suspect there are a lot of Huckabee voters like that--will believe if, but if the candidate is really pressed, he can deny it.

Subject: RE: BS: South Carolina - Whole new ballgame
From: RangerSteve
Date: 09 Jan 08 - 03:16 PM

My brother lives in South Carolina, just across the state line from Charlotte. I read somewhere that the area contains the largest Hispanic population in the Southeast, after Miami. His area, around Rock Hill and York, has a newspaper that is decidedly anti-Bush. I don't know about the rest of the state, but I wouldn't associate the whole state with the Evangelist way of thinking.

Subject: RE: BS: South Carolina - Whole new ballgame
From: Riginslinger
Date: 09 Jan 08 - 04:01 PM

I agree, and the same could be said about Iowa. But when there is a substantial community of people who think that way, and they put in as much work as they do to recruit folks, it has a magnifying effect.

                            Also, Bush has been pro-amnesty until pretty recently so these guys don't all think alike.

Subject: RE: BS: South Carolina - Whole new ballgame
From: Genie
Date: 09 Jan 08 - 04:54 PM

Well, John Edwards was born in S. Carolina and later represented N Carolina in the US Senate. I understand that about half the Democratic voters in S Carolina are black, plus a lot of voters of all races are lower middle class or "the working poor."   I'd think pro-Labor ideology and populism would do well there.   
It would not surprise me if Edwards and Obama garnered the bulk of the Democratic Primary votes plus those of a lot of Independents and even some Republicans (the ones who don't like Huckabee).   Clinton might well come in 3rd, and the Democratic turnout might once again overshadow the Republican turnout.

I'd love to see that.

Subject: RE: BS: South Carolina - Whole new ballgame
From: Bobert
Date: 09 Jan 08 - 05:04 PM

Edwards, Obama and Clinton... In that order...

McCain, Huckabee, Paul... In that order...

But with those predictions behind me, Huckabee is going to have to explain his "Fair Tax" sometime and that is gonna hurt him more than help him becasue it is unmanagable, unrealistic and open for criticism...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: South Carolina - Whole new ballgame
From: Donuel
Date: 09 Jan 08 - 05:09 PM

Ask Forbes about fair tax. It is the same old saw that comes out to intice yahoos at election time and then goes back in the tackle box.

Subject: RE: BS: South Carolina - Whole new ballgame
From: Bobert
Date: 09 Jan 08 - 05:25 PM

I don't remember the specifics on Forbes "flat tax" but what Huckabee is proposing is ending the income tax in favor of a national sales tax with checks being sent out to most Americans to to balance out the regressiveness???

Whoooooahhhh??? Yup, 300,000,000 or so checks written on the US treasury every month???

This is an insane idea...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: South Carolina - Whole new ballgame
From: Rapparee
Date: 09 Jan 08 - 05:29 PM

Promise 'em everything...but ya gotta get it through Congress.

Subject: RE: BS: South Carolina - Whole new ballgame
From: Riginslinger
Date: 09 Jan 08 - 05:30 PM

It wouldn't be so bad if you could get on their mailing list.

Subject: RE: BS: South Carolina - Whole new ballgame
From: KB in Iowa
Date: 09 Jan 08 - 05:32 PM

Flat tax sounded good on the surface but I could never get over that it seemed like the folks in favor of it were all rich.

Fair tax I just dislike on its own merits.

Subject: RE: BS: South Carolina - Whole new ballgame
From: Q (Frank Staplin)
Date: 09 Jan 08 - 05:51 PM

Lotsa things sound good if one doesn't analyze them.
Amending the constitution, even if it did get passed, could take forever to ratify. Chances are next to nil.

Fair tax? No tax is fair if it increases my payments.

South Carolina- Polls of Republican voters show Huckabee with a clear lead.
I agree with that; McCain is too 'liberal' for SC and he hasn't made enough evangelical noises.

On the Democratic side, polls show Clinton, Obama and Edwards in that order, but polls in primaries and caucuses are notoriously inaccurate.
I think Edwards, Clinton and Obama in that order, if Edwards gets up on the evangelical stump, so I wouldn't wager an old pair of socks on it.

Subject: RE: BS: South Carolina - Whole new ballgame
From: GUEST,Janie
Date: 09 Jan 08 - 06:02 PM

Getting John Edwards elected to the Senate was a VERY tough fight. We are now back to two Republicans - moderately conservative Dole, and conservative Burr. Before Edwards, we tried very hard to get liberal, African-American Harvey Gantt elected in two subsequent senate races. It was close, but we couldn't beat Jesse Helms. And I doubt Edwards could have either. He beat out Lauch Faircloth, Helm's protege. If Jesse were alive and well, he would still be the senior senator from North Carolina.

Last week I drove from Hillsborough to Myrtle Beach, SC, and went the back way, through the country. The signs were starting to go up in people's yards and along roadways for the SC primary. In 80 miles of driving through the poor rural communities of the northeast coastal plain of South Carolina, I did not see one sign for a Democratic candidate. They were all for assorted Republicans. I saw more for Ron Paul than anyone, but it was also apparent some one had been making an organized effort to get large signs up for him in the median of the roadways through the swamps and farmfields.

The Democratic candidates need very much to not rip into each other in the South. There are too many southerns who are marginal Democrats when voting in national elections (I'm not counting the ones who will always vote Democratic in local elections, and always vote Republican in national elections.) If the Dems. tear each other up, they will win the South for the Republicans in the general election.

We do have quite a large hispanic population, most of whom are not US citizens.

The South is not going to be a shoo-in for either party in the general election. I think it likely that State by southern State, the vote is going to be very, very close. But if the general election were tomorrow, I would predict the Republican would take North Carolina by a reasonable margin. The Dems. have their work cut out for them.

Janie

Subject: RE: BS: South Carolina - Whole new ballgame
From: Riginslinger
Date: 09 Jan 08 - 06:18 PM

"We do have quite a large hispanic population, most of whom are not US citizens."

                        That seems to be what Huckabee is banking on!

Subject: RE: BS: South Carolina - Whole new ballgame
From: Q (Frank Staplin)
Date: 09 Jan 08 - 07:31 PM

McCain is already campaigning in Michigan, where he has strength. More and more, candidates will go to states where they have a good chance to get delegates.

Subject: RE: BS: South Carolina - Whole new ballgame
From: Riginslinger
Date: 09 Jan 08 - 09:04 PM

I would think McCain would have a lot of trouble in Michigan, given the state of the economy there.

Subject: RE: BS: South Carolina - Whole new ballgame
From: Bobert
Date: 09 Jan 08 - 09:20 PM

But, Janie...

On the House side, North Carolina ain't as bad...

Subject: RE: BS: South Carolina - Whole new ballgame
From: freightdawg
Date: 09 Jan 08 - 11:42 PM

MSN is reporting Richardson will bow out of the race tomorrow.

So where does his 5% go?


Freightdawg

Subject: RE: BS: South Carolina - Whole new ballgame
From: Janie
Date: 10 Jan 08 - 12:20 AM

That's because in the House, you have districts. The urban areas tend to elect more Democrats, more liberals, and more African-Americans. But most of the state is still quite rural - both rural industrial and rural agrarian, very conservative, tending toward fundamentalism. Factor into the urban-rural mix that while poor folks don't vote much, poor folks in rural agrarian areas vote even less, and in those areas, the African-American population tends to be very poor. These are the folks in rural areas who would be more likely to vote Democratic if they voted. So in statewide elections, it takes a very big urban turnout to carry even a mildly liberal candidate. Democrats elected to the State assembly from rural areas tend to be quite conservative. Our current governor is a Democrat, but may as well be a Republican.

Rig, while as a country we are scratching our heads to figure out what to do about immigration and hemispheric economic policies that aren't working for any of the nations involved, I don't think you will find that immigration will be a hot, emotionally charged issue for most North Carolinians.

Subject: RE: BS: South Carolina - Whole new ballgame
From: Janie
Date: 10 Jan 08 - 12:21 AM

Oops. Bobert, 1st paragraph above is in answer to your question.

Subject: RE: BS: South Carolina - Whole new ballgame
From: Bee
Date: 10 Jan 08 - 12:31 AM

Bobert, that sales tax scheme sounds remarkably like our GST - Goods and Services tax, and low income people get a yearly rebate on that.

Subject: RE: BS: South Carolina - Whole new ballgame
From: Riginslinger
Date: 10 Jan 08 - 09:48 AM

"I don't think you will find that immigration will be a hot, emotionally charged issue for most North Carolinians."


                Yeah, it was South Carolina where the media folks--the same ones who were all wrong about New Hampshire--said immigration was a hot button issue.

Subject: RE: BS: South Carolina - Whole new ballgame
From: Amos
Date: 10 Jan 08 - 11:15 AM

CHARLESTON, S.C. – Senator John Kerry is set to endorse the presidential candidacy of Senator Barack Obama at a rally here today, the first of several high-profile Democrats expected to announce their support for Mr. Obama in his fight to win the party's nomination.
Mr. Kerry, a Massachusetts Democrat who was the party's presidential nominee in 2004, will argue that Mr. Obama represents the best prospect for uniting a divided country, aides to both men said, as well as transforming America's image around the world.
The endorsement is weeks in the making.

Subject: RE: BS: South Carolina - Whole new ballgame
From: Q (Frank Staplin)
Date: 10 Jan 08 - 02:40 PM

A neglected factor in polls is the white, poorer segment in the voting public.
In New Hampshire, polls of whites were mostly of the better educated and more affluent. Many poorer whites, who mistrust blacks, do not respond to polls but will vote.
Mr Kohut of Pew Research, one of the polls predicting Obama over Clinton, said they made the same miscue in the NY Dinkins-Giuliani race in 1989.
I have linked the OpEd column in the NY Times, which appeared today, in the New Hampshire thread.

Subject: RE: BS: South Carolina - Whole new ballgame
From: Q (Frank Staplin)
Date: 10 Jan 08 - 07:55 PM

South Carolina Primary

Democrats- 54 delegates at stake.
45 of the delegates are allocated proportionally to presidential candidates- 29 allocated bases on the vote in each of the state's 6 congressional districts and 16 allocated according to the statewide vote. Eight are unpledged and will be selected at the state convention.

(Edwards running third in the polls but I expect a close finish)

Republicans- Winner take all primary, 24 delegates at stake. Based on the vote in the Republican primary, all 44 of SC delegates are alloted to presidential candidates; 18 allocated based on the candidate that received the most votes in each of the state's 6 congressional districts.
At the state convention, 26 delegates are alloted to the candidate receiving the most votes in the primary statewide. Three additional delegates are selected from party leaders.

(A close race between McCain and Huckabee is predicted).

Subject: RE: BS: South Carolina - Whole new ballgame
From: Riginslinger
Date: 10 Jan 08 - 09:38 PM

And the South Carolina debate is tonight, for the GOP.
                   Another interesting aspect of this from the Republican side is, the media seem to be looking at this as a venue for candidates to get their message out to Michigan, where they will be voting next Tuesday. The voters in Michigan, however, have a somewhat different set of priorities from the voters in South Carolina.
                   Michigan is essential for Romney to keep his campaign alive. It will be fascinating to see what, or how, he does.

Subject: RE: BS: South Carolina - Whole new ballgame
From: Q (Frank Staplin)
Date: 10 Jan 08 - 09:47 PM

Yes, I can't see Michigan voters paying much attention to South Carolina.
Michigan is a big state, and the first with much manufacturing clout. It will be important.

Subject: RE: BS: South Carolina - Whole new ballgame
From: Riginslinger
Date: 11 Jan 08 - 09:10 AM

Well, I guess it's only important to the Republicans, since Obama and Edwards pulled out.

Subject: RE: BS: South Carolina - Whole new ballgame
From: Jeri
Date: 11 Jan 08 - 09:30 AM

Democratic primary votes in Michigan will not count.
A few states have been penalized by holding elections before super-duper Tuesday. Can't blame them for not campaigning in a state when those people's votes won't count at all in nominating a candidate.

Subject: RE: BS: South Carolina - Whole new ballgame
From: Riginslinger
Date: 11 Jan 08 - 10:29 AM

Still, it will generat a whole bunch of free publicity for Hillary!

Subject: RE: BS: South Carolina - Whole new ballgame
From: Q (Frank Staplin)
Date: 11 Jan 08 - 01:49 PM

Michigan Jan 15
Democratic primary
Candidates- Clinton, Kuchinich, Gravel, (Dodd)
Obama and Edwards deferred to the Nat. Dem. Party which determined that Michigan had improperly jumped ahead of other states, and withdrew.
Supporters of Edwards and Obama are being urged to vote uncommitted since write-ins will not count. Clinton, of course, is hoping that the uncommitted vote will be small, giving her a clear win.
There may be a fight at the National Convention (doubtful), but at this time, Clinton stands to win 156 votes. In any case, Obama will lose momentum, according to the bookmakers.

Republican Primary
Bookmakers have Romney as the favorite, McCain very close, Huckabee a poor third and Giuliani far down.
Republicans decided that Michigan was too important a state to ignore, and decided to enter.

The above collected from several websites that seem reliable. Because MI has a high unemployment rate, the Republican vote could have some surprises.

Subject: RE: BS: South Carolina - Whole new ballgame
From: freightdawg
Date: 11 Jan 08 - 09:33 PM

If all the major players sans Clinton pull out of Michigan in order to take the "moral high ground" and appease the party bosses, how can Clinton claim victory? Her even being in the primary when all the others pulled up stakes smacks of desperation. Deep desperation.

And talk about disaster - if there is a floor fight at the convention (only necessary if the nomination vote count is within a couple of hundred or so) there will be nothing left to win. Talk about a scorched earth.

My take is that Clinton has already lost Michigan no matter how the voting turns out. All Obama and Edwards (or their attack dogs) have to do is smile condescendingly and say, "Of course you won...there was no race."

What say ye?

Freightdawg

Subject: RE: BS: South Carolina - Whole new ballgame
From: Jeri
Date: 12 Jan 08 - 10:00 AM

The RNC has only penalized Michigan half of its 60 delegates, but the DNC stripped Michigan all 157 delegates.

Subject: RE: BS: South Carolina - Whole new ballgame
From: Q (Frank Staplin)
Date: 12 Jan 08 - 02:37 PM

This NPR report from the Democratic Party website:

Obama, Edwards, Biden and Richardson..."withdrew their names because Michigan moved up its primary despite BEING TOLD NOT TO DO SO (caps mine) by the Democratic National Party, and they did not file...by Friday's deadline to allow their write-in votes to be counted. But according to the [Detroit] "News," more Democrats than Republicans could turn-up to vote in the primary even without a real contest. (Another sign of how energized Democratic voters are?) State Democratic officials, ... have encouraged Democrats to vote, even if their candidate isn't on the ballot.
"Supporters of Edwards and Obama could mark the "uncommitted" portion of the ballot. If 15% of Democrats statewide or in any congressional district vote "uncommitted," the state could send some delegates to the National convention who would be free to vote for any candidate they wanted to support. (Although the national party said it would strip Michigan of its delegates if it didn't more its primary back, Brewer [state chairman] stuck to his guns and said the state party would still send delegates and he expected them to be eventually seated despite the penalty).
"And there in lies the problem for Clinton. What happens if there are more "uncommitted" votes than votes for her? Detroit News polster Ed Sarpolus said Friday that Clinton would get a black eye if she gets anything less than 60% of the vote."

The Democratic Party threat (only that, not an action) is empty, since Michigan has not violated any requirements for primaries. The party can make a show at the national to show its displeasure, but eventually the delegates will be seated. The make-up could be a surprise, a contingent of "uncommitted" delegates could be a problem for Clinton if it is large.

http://www.democrats.org
Michigan primary

Subject: RE: BS: South Carolina - Whole new ballgame
From: Q (Frank Staplin)
Date: 12 Jan 08 - 02:46 PM

Note that the Democratic Party website has a Spanish news section.
Spanish

Subject: RE: BS: South Carolina - Whole new ballgame
From: Bonzo3legs
Date: 12 Jan 08 - 03:05 PM

Do any USAians realise that here in the UK we are sick to death of your pathetic elections?

Subject: RE: BS: South Carolina - Whole new ballgame
From: Riginslinger
Date: 12 Jan 08 - 03:11 PM

Well, they're pretty well identified, if one chooses not to read them.

                One thing the Michigan primary might do is skew the Republican candidates. Democrats can cross over, in view of the reality that their candidate might have bailed on them, and vote for Huckabee in the Republican race.

Subject: RE: BS: South Carolina - Whole new ballgame
From: Q (Frank Staplin)
Date: 12 Jan 08 - 03:34 PM

Bonzo, we don't want to hear about your "pathetic" elections in the UK.

Subject: RE: BS: South Carolina - Whole new ballgame
From: Peace
Date: 12 Jan 08 - 03:39 PM

It ain't the elections that are pathetic--it's the results. Hope that changes this time.

Subject: RE: BS: South Carolina - Whole new ballgame
From: Amos
Date: 12 Jan 08 - 03:58 PM

Bonzo:

Reading is voluntary, so far.

And you can unplug your damn tellly and read a good book.



A

Subject: RE: BS: South Carolina - Whole new ballgame
From: freightdawg
Date: 12 Jan 08 - 11:15 PM

My apologies if I mistated the reason why Obama, Edwards, et. al. pulled out of the Michigan primary. My source was an online article that I can no longer access and was written some time ago.

If the "official" story is correct I have some more questions than answers. If the party bosses did in fact tell the candidates not to withdraw, why did they? Why pull out of a state with such a heavy union representation? It makes no sense. In fact, it makes worse than no sense. It is plainly bizarre.

This will be one interesting story. If the party machinery must eventually let all the delegates in and vote, how can they manage the party in the future? You have to have the ability to enforce rules (even arbitrary ones) or you have no ability to create rules. I have thought that the rules regarding when a state holds its primary to be incredibly arcane, but it is the party's perogative to make and enforce such rules. As an example, I would love to see the electoral college eliminated. However, the electoral college is the rule now, so POPULAR votes don't matter a hill of beans. Only the electoral college really matters.

Oh well, tune in next week, same bat time, same bat station.

Freightdawg

Subject: RE: BS: South Carolina - Whole new ballgame
From: Riginslinger
Date: 13 Jan 08 - 10:32 AM

Q - Looking back to your posting on Michigan, I would read from that, if I were a resident of Michigan, that Ewards, Obama, and Richardson didn't give a hoot about Michigan if there was nothing in it for them.
                Futher, and you probably know better than I, if somebody crosses over and votes Republican--because the Democratic options are so meager--wouldn't that take their vote out of the "undecided" camp, and actually help Hillary Clinton?

Subject: RE: BS: South Carolina - Whole new ballgame
From: Riginslinger
Date: 13 Jan 08 - 10:33 AM

In fact, if I were Hillary, I would go to Michigan and make that point--the other candidates didn't even care enough to file for the ballot.

Subject: RE: BS: South Carolina - Whole new ballgame
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 13 Jan 08 - 10:53 AM

Actually, Bonzo3IQ, it does matter. You may have heard "If the buton is pushed, there's no running away".

Subject: RE: BS: South Carolina - Whole new ballgame
From: Q (Frank Staplin)
Date: 13 Jan 08 - 12:12 PM

Yep, what happens in Michigan and how it plays out in state vs. national horse-trading in the next few months will be most interesting.
Personally, I think Obama and Edwards were afraid of Michigan, whick has a large labor vote in the cities.

Subject: RE: BS: South Carolina - Whole new ballgame
From: Riginslinger
Date: 13 Jan 08 - 02:30 PM

George Step-in-awful-stuff says says "The Daily Kos" is encouraging Democratic voters to cross over and vote for Romney in Michigan, in order to further fracture the Republican party.

             If they do that, as close as the polls are--if we are still listening to the polls--Romney could go into South Carolina with a really strong following. Of course, this would also help Hillary Clinton.

Subject: RE: BS: South Carolina - Whole new ballgame
From: Amos
Date: 13 Jan 08 - 02:32 PM

Rig:

If they cast votes as spoilers in MI, as you describe, it would give him a false spike, statistically, but I don;t see how any of it would "follow" him to SC.

A

Subject: RE: BS: South Carolina - Whole new ballgame
From: Riginslinger
Date: 13 Jan 08 - 04:21 PM

It might not follow him to SC as far as the voters are concerned, but the media would love it. The point is, as I understand it from Stephanopoulos, the Daily Kos people do not want McCain to carry Michigan. Since the only leading Democrat they could vote for there is Hillary, and there are no delegates on the line anyway, the are encouraging their readers to crossover and vote for Romney in order to deny McCain the victory.

                  That would keep the Republicans scrampled for a while longer, and keep McCain from gaining momentum. As long at it appears things are going well in Iraq, they think McCain would make the most potent foe in November.

Subject: RE: BS: South Carolina - Whole new ballgame
From: Riginslinger
Date: 13 Jan 08 - 04:26 PM

It would scramble things even further if Huckabee won South Carolina and Guiliani won in Florida.

Subject: RE: BS: South Carolina - Whole new ballgame
From: Q (Frank Staplin)
Date: 13 Jan 08 - 06:09 PM

Although Giuliani has a slight lead over Huckleberry and Romney in the polls, he may be in for an unpleasant surprise. Older people like him, but McCain and Romney are gaining. McCain has the military vote. Thompson can poach Huckabee votes.
Hispanics now are a larger group than blacks, and this adds a twist to past election patterns.
Interesting state, but effect on the other primaries?

Subject: RE: BS: South Carolina - Whole new ballgame
From: Riginslinger
Date: 14 Jan 08 - 08:38 AM

What happens in Michigan is probably going to have a major affect on South Carolina.

Subject: RE: BS: South Carolina - Whole new ballgame
From: Riginslinger
Date: 15 Jan 08 - 01:22 AM

effect?

Subject: RE: BS: South Carolina - Whole new ballgame
From: freightdawg
Date: 15 Jan 08 - 03:47 PM

"Effect" is correct. However, if the results in Michigan were to somehow cause South Carolina to become significantly euphoric, or conversely, intensly depressed, you could say the effect was to change the affect.

Doncha just love English

Freightdawg

Subject: RE: BS: South Carolina - Whole new ballgame
From: Amos
Date: 15 Jan 08 - 09:31 PM

It might affect the State by having a major effect on it.


A

Subject: RE: BS: South Carolina - Whole new ballgame
From: Riginslinger
Date: 15 Jan 08 - 10:53 PM

I think it'll have an effect now. With Romney winning Michigan, McCain goes to SC with a lot less steam than he otherwise would have. In his concession speach, he looked like that guy in the Lil' Abner comic strip who always had bridges collapse behind him, and tornados strike just after he went by. Joe Bltsphk, or something like that.
                The whole experience gives new meaning to the term, "Black in the face."
                Anyway, now he has to go south and do battle with the folks who are really out of touch with reality, Huckabee and Thompson.

Subject: RE: BS: South Carolina - Whole new ballgame
From: Riginslinger
Date: 16 Jan 08 - 07:35 PM

Of course, we could end up with a McCain/Lieberman ticket on the Republican side. Then if Bloomberg got into the general election as an independant, and took away enough of the Democratic vote, things could look pretty grim indeed for the enemies of Israel and the American tax payers.

Subject: RE: BS: South Carolina - Whole new ballgame
From: Q (Frank Staplin)
Date: 16 Jan 08 - 11:49 PM

Three days to go. Boston Globe latest poll shows McCain 29%, H. medievalensis 23% and Romney 13%.
We shall see.

Subject: RE: BS: South Carolina - Whole new ballgame
From: Riginslinger
Date: 17 Jan 08 - 08:13 AM

The latest polls seem to have Obama gaining in SC.

          It will be interesting to see if Romney gets any kind of a boost out of Michigan.

Subject: RE: BS: South Carolina - Whole new ballgame
From: Riginslinger
Date: 18 Jan 08 - 08:44 PM

The latest polls have Huckabee catching up to McCain. I was hoping for Thompson, to really scramble things, but...

Subject: RE: BS: South Carolina - Whole new ballgame
From: Q (Frank Staplin)
Date: 18 Jan 08 - 09:14 PM

Lots of primitive evangelists in the Carolinas and South, as well as the Midwest.

Subject: RE: BS: South Carolina - Whole new ballgame
From: Q (Frank Staplin)
Date: 19 Jan 08 - 12:13 AM

Looking at CNN Election Central Scorecard-
South Carolina- Clinton has 2 delegates (superdelegates, not elected in the primary).
Nevada- Clinton has 2 and Obama has 1

CNN estimates of firm delegates so far-
Democrats-
Clinton 190
Obama 103
Edwards 51
Kuchich (sp.) 1

Republicans-
Romney 54
Huckabee 22
McCain 15
Thompson 6
Paul 2

Dems- Total 4049 delegates, of which 3253 will be pledged, and 796 superdelegates who are not affected by votes.

Rep- Total 2380 delegates, of which 1917 will be pledged and 463 unpledged (123 are automatic delegates).

http;//www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/primaries/results/scorecard/

Subject: RE: BS: South Carolina - Whole new ballgame
From: Amos
Date: 19 Jan 08 - 12:33 AM

Those are estimated delegate counts, dependent on the rest of the primaries or caucuses.

The present actual count is only:

Obama
25
Clinton
24
Edwards
18


A

Subject: RE: BS: South Carolina - Whole new ballgame
From: Q (Frank Staplin)
Date: 19 Jan 08 - 12:12 PM

Amos, the CNN tally includes the superdelegates and automatic delegates who are not bound by primary or caucus votes, and who have declared their choice-
463 Republican delegates (123 are automatic delegates) of 2380 total and 796 Democratic superdelegates of a total of 4049 are not bound by primary or caucus vote. Some have announced their intentions and these are included in the CNN count. These people are influential party members, some are members of Congress, etc.
In South Carolina, two superdelegates have announced for Clinton, as I noted in the previous post.

Of course these superdelegates may shift after they find out which way the wind is blowing. Somewhat of a wild card that becomes important when floor votes at the conventions are close and electability becomes the major consideration.

On the Convention floors, 1191 votes are needed to get the Republican nomination and 2025 at the Democratic Convention.
At the primaries and caucuses, 1917 Republican delegates and 3253 Democratic delegates are determined, and are held until released by the candidates whom they represent.

But don't forget these 463 unpledged Republican delegates and 796 unpledged Democratic superdelegates.

Subject: RE: BS: South Carolina - Whole new ballgame
From: Amos
Date: 19 Jan 08 - 01:02 PM

Thanks, Q -- I misunderstood the situation.

A

Subject: RE: BS: South Carolina - Whole new ballgame
From: Riginslinger
Date: 20 Jan 08 - 10:05 AM

Well, it's on to Florida and all points east and west.
       It's beginning to look like Thompson is in the game to "shill" for McCain, drawing enough blind buffoons away from Huckabee in South Carolina to hand the victory to Mr. I-Love-War.
       That could explain why it took him so long to get into the fray. They had to wait until they were through re-writing his script.

Subject: RE: BS: South Carolina - Whole new ballgame
From: Ron Davies
Date: 20 Jan 08 - 10:54 AM

Rig--


Good to know you're an equal opportunity smearer.

McCain is not "I love war". He's a former POW who knows what war is. Perhaps even more than you do.

I suspect it's likely that if he had won in 2000, we would not be in the Iraq war. But now
that we are, he's convinced himself that it's necessary to "win"--whatever that is.

As a result he has lost huge numbers of votes.

But I'm not surprised to see your slander.

Subject: RE: BS: South Carolina - Whole new ballgame
From: CarolC
Date: 20 Jan 08 - 11:16 AM

Kucinich has been excluded from the Congressional Black Caucus 'debate' (paid infomercial) in Myrtle Beach SC tomorrow. I'll be there campaigning and handing out Kucinich stuff. I'm not happy that Dennis won't be in the debate, but I think we'll have a lot of fun.

Subject: RE: BS: South Carolina - Whole new ballgame
From: Riginslinger
Date: 20 Jan 08 - 12:36 PM

It doesn't sound like the Congressional Black Caucus wants to deal with reality either.

Subject: RE: BS: South Carolina - Whole new ballgame
From: Amos
Date: 20 Jan 08 - 01:13 PM

McCain does not love war. But his experience and training lead him to think in military terms. There is no need to slander the man; I think he is decent, but misguided.


A

Subject: RE: BS: South Carolina - Whole new ballgame
From: Q (Frank Staplin)
Date: 20 Jan 08 - 01:57 PM

I agree, Amos. McCain is perhaps too decent. To cut and run will leave a vacuum in Iraq that extremists will fill. On the other hand, the U. S. must learn not to try to police the world.


Who is Kuccinch?

Subject: RE: BS: South Carolina - Whole new ballgame
From: Ron Davies
Date: 20 Jan 08 - 02:03 PM

Which extremists, pray tell-given the huge popularity of al-Qaeda with both Iraqi Sunnis and Shiites?

It's too glib to threaten us with amorphous "extremists".

Subject: RE: BS: South Carolina - Whole new ballgame
From: Riginslinger
Date: 20 Jan 08 - 02:17 PM

Here's a scenario that would work.
1. America pulls out as quickly as possible, taking everything they brought with them.
2. The many factions left in Iraq engage in an ethnic free-for-all, in attempt to gain ulimate power.
3. America sells weapons to both (and/or all) sides, and rakes in billions in additional profits.
4. When there's nobody left, America goes back into Iraq--with mine sweepers and teams to seek out unexploded ordnance--and develops the oil fields.

Subject: RE: BS: South Carolina - Whole new ballgame
From: Ron Davies
Date: 20 Jan 08 - 03:40 PM

Rig--

You need to open a chain of stores--Conspiracy Theories R Us. (Slander for no extra charge)

Do you have anything else in your head?

Subject: RE: BS: South Carolina - Whole new ballgame
From: Amos
Date: 20 Jan 08 - 03:45 PM

Mister Davies:

Ad hominem, ad miseriam!! Manners!!!! :D



A

Subject: RE: BS: South Carolina - Whole new ballgame
From: CarolC
Date: 20 Jan 08 - 04:02 PM

Dennis Kucinich

He is calling for a complete withdrawal of US forces, but he is also calling for moving in an international force to take their place as they are being withdrawn. So he advocates US withdrawal, but not 'cutting and running'.

Subject: RE: BS: South Carolina - Whole new ballgame
From: Ron Davies
Date: 20 Jan 08 - 04:04 PM

Sorry Amos, but I tend to get a bit tired of a steady diet of conspiracy theories with no evidence. With slander as the alternative. And I will point out nonsense wherever I see it--anywhere on the political spectrum.

You probably recall that Ron Thomasson--who in addition to his bluegrass talent was an English teacher--and had a wicked sense of humor--used to say "We believe in aggressive ignorance in bluegrass music".

Sometimes that seems appropriate here-- (not you of course, but there are some others who never seem to find the time to do any research whatsoever but always are burning to add their wonderful contributions.)

Subject: RE: BS: South Carolina - Whole new ballgame
From: CarolC
Date: 20 Jan 08 - 04:05 PM

I don't know if I used 'international' correctly in that context. Maybe 'multinational' would have been the more appropriate word.

Subject: RE: BS: South Carolina - Whole new ballgame
From: CarolC
Date: 20 Jan 08 - 04:07 PM

I suspect that Riginslinger was being facetious. Some people have no sense of irony.

Subject: RE: BS: South Carolina - Whole new ballgame
From: Riginslinger
Date: 20 Jan 08 - 04:53 PM

Ron - You might want to revisit your concept of a "conspiracy theory."

             For instance: If the Green Bay Packers are on offense, and they go back into a huddle and assess the defense, they are, in fact, conspiring, right.
             So then they make the assumption that the middle linebacker is going to blitz the quarterback, that's a theory, okay?
             So they decide on a delayed handoff to the fullback, with the quarterback faking to drop back for a pass. We call that a "draw play." So they break the huddle with the intention of snapping the ball and running a draw play to the fullback.

             What the Green Bay Packers are doing, basically, qualifies, in a sense, as a "conspiracy theory."


                When you accuse someone to be engaged in a "conspircay theory," there has to be both elements. There has to be both a theory, and a conspiracy. In many cases, the remarks you are citing contains neither of these elements.

Subject: RE: BS: South Carolina - Whole new ballgame
From: Q (Frank Staplin)
Date: 20 Jan 08 - 05:02 PM

Riginslinger, are you trying to introduce some sense into this thread?

Subject: RE: BS: South Carolina - Whole new ballgame
From: Riginslinger
Date: 20 Jan 08 - 06:22 PM

Sense would be nice!

Subject: RE: BS: South Carolina - Whole new ballgame
From: Mrrzy
Date: 20 Jan 08 - 10:03 PM

Cents too...

This is not going to be a happy year...

Subject: RE: BS: South Carolina - Whole new ballgame
From: Riginslinger
Date: 20 Jan 08 - 10:48 PM

Why not, Mrrzy?

Subject: RE: BS: South Carolina - Whole new ballgame
From: Riginslinger
Date: 21 Jan 08 - 08:10 PM

We're scheduled to have another three way lovefest tonight, as Kucinich has been eliminated from the debate, so it will, by its very nature, be boring.

Subject: RE: BS: South Carolina - Whole new ballgame
From: CarolC
Date: 21 Jan 08 - 11:31 PM

Well, that was fun! We stood outside the 'debate' (paid infomercial) venue, and shouted, "Let Dennis speak!" and stuff like that, surrounded by Edwards and Obama people. We got interviewed by several television and newspaper reporters (I got interviewed by the local newspaper, The Sun). And Dennis made a call to our headquarters and gave us a pep talk. We took the call on my cell phone... :-D

The guy who interviewed me asked me if I would be watching the debate after I left. I told him that we might be driving home during the debate, but that I found the debates to be pretty uninteresting with just the three candidates, because they all say essentially the same things.

We froze our tootsies off, too.

Subject: RE: BS: South Carolina - Whole new ballgame
From: CarolC
Date: 22 Jan 08 - 02:11 AM

This was one of our people. Very effective, in my opinion...

http://www.myrtlebeachonline.com/724/gallery/322333-a322732-t3.html

Subject: RE: BS: South Carolina - Whole new ballgame
From: CarolC
Date: 22 Jan 08 - 02:21 AM

Woah, they're fast. Here's the interview...

http://thesunnews.typepad.com/politicktock/2008/01/kucinich-suppor.html

Subject: RE: BS: South Carolina - Whole new ballgame
From: Riginslinger
Date: 22 Jan 08 - 07:55 AM

Well, at least they printed your message, even though they wouldn't let Kucinich into the debate.
                  Who was it that was keeping him out? Was it the television network again this time, or the Congressional Black Caucus?

Subject: RE: BS: South Carolina - Whole new ballgame
From: CarolC
Date: 22 Jan 08 - 11:36 AM

I think it was probably the network. He had gotten an invitation from the Congressional Black Caucus, and I'm guessing that the network pulled rank on them and uninvited him.

Ironically, Kucinich was one of only two people who were willing to participate in an earlier debate that the Congressional Black Caucus wanted to put on, and now he was excluded from this one.

Subject: RE: BS: South Carolina - Whole new ballgame
From: Riginslinger
Date: 22 Jan 08 - 11:58 AM

That's right! I'd forgotten about that. It looks like the monied interests are happily sticking it to everybody. What does it take to wake people up?

Subject: RE: BS: South Carolina - Whole new ballgame
From: CarolC
Date: 22 Jan 08 - 12:29 PM

What does it take to wake people up?

I'm guessing what it will take is four years of whoever gets elected this time around.

Subject: RE: BS: South Carolina - Whole new ballgame
From: Riginslinger
Date: 22 Jan 08 - 12:42 PM

We just had 7 years of the stupidest buffoon in history, and that didn't do it.

Subject: RE: BS: South Carolina - Whole new ballgame
From: Peace
Date: 22 Jan 08 - 12:47 PM

Kucinich should announce that HE is holding a debate and at the same time announce exactly who he's invited. That might tell folks a few things they need to know.

Subject: RE: BS: South Carolina - Whole new ballgame
From: Riginslinger
Date: 22 Jan 08 - 01:03 PM

I wonder if he'd invite Ron Paul?

Subject: RE: BS: South Carolina - Whole new ballgame
From: CarolC
Date: 22 Jan 08 - 01:24 PM

We just had 7 years of the stupidest buffoon in history, and that didn't do it.

That's true. But I think people are starting to wake up. I think there's a good chance that things will reach a tipping point some time in the next few years. Of course, I could be wrong about that, but this is my gut feeling.

Subject: RE: BS: South Carolina - Whole new ballgame
From: CarolC
Date: 22 Jan 08 - 01:27 PM

Dennis would invite all of the candidates. He believes in open and honest debate. Plus, the more he debates the other candidates, the worse they look and the better he looks. That's why they aren't allowing him to debate with them. I have no doubt, however, that none of them would show up. They hate debating with him because they know he makes them look bad in front of the voters.

Subject: RE: BS: South Carolina - Whole new ballgame
From: Riginslinger
Date: 22 Jan 08 - 02:13 PM

I think Ron Paul would show up. He shows up at all the Republican debates they'll let him into, and the other candidates laugh at everything he says.
                         He keeps showing up...

Subject: RE: BS: South Carolina - Whole new ballgame
From: CarolC
Date: 22 Jan 08 - 02:34 PM

I think that would be a very interesting debate.

Subject: RE: BS: South Carolina - Whole new ballgame
From: CarolC
Date: 22 Jan 08 - 03:21 PM

This is why they're excluding him from the debates...

http://youtube.com/watch?v=tFabLp-Jcbg&feature=related

Subject: RE: BS: South Carolina - Whole new ballgame
From: Riginslinger
Date: 23 Jan 08 - 10:42 AM

That was an interesting clip, Carol. I disagree with him profoundly about immigration--I think he's trying to help the wrong victims--but there are ways to work that out, I suspect. I think he's right about everything else, however, but unless he can get his message out, the masses won't even know who he is.

Subject: RE: BS: South Carolina - Whole new ballgame
From: CarolC
Date: 24 Jan 08 - 12:12 AM

Be prepared for another surprise like the one in New Hampshire, Guest. The voting process in that state is highly suspect.

Subject: RE: BS: South Carolina - Whole new ballgame
From: Riginslinger
Date: 24 Jan 08 - 12:21 PM

Does that mean Kucinich will have to sue in SC as well?

Subject: RE: BS: South Carolina - Whole new ballgame
From: CarolC
Date: 24 Jan 08 - 12:48 PM

I don't know. My guess is that he requested the one in New Hampshire to give the people who are working to clean up our elections an opportunity to scrutinize the process in at least one state. I don't know if they would want to do this in every state with a questionable outcome, or if they would feel that they can do what's needed using just one state.

I'm finding that Dennis is as much about process as he is about results.

Subject: RE: BS: South Carolina - Whole new ballgame
From: Riginslinger
Date: 24 Jan 08 - 09:49 PM

Well, he won't be there now. I really hope his dropping out helps John Edwards.

Subject: RE: BS: South Carolina - Whole new ballgame
From: Riginslinger
Date: 25 Jan 08 - 09:58 PM

The latest polls show Hillary gaining on Obama, though pollsters have been a little timid about sticking their collective necks out since New Hampshire.

Subject: RE: BS: South Carolina - Whole new ballgame
From: Ron Davies
Date: 26 Jan 08 - 09:18 AM

Well, if Obama does win in South Carolina, it will indeed be a whole new ballgame. Among other things, the first state primary he wins--proof that he has broad appeal.

And against what Hillary's state manager asserts is the best political machine in the state.

And at that point, a harbinger.

Subject: RE: BS: South Carolina - Whole new ballgame
From: Ron Davies
Date: 26 Jan 08 - 09:22 AM

Interestingly enough, the pro-Hillary spin has already started. Sample headline: "To Truly Win In South Carolina, Obama Needs Large Margin".

Interesting.

But dead wrong.

An Obama win of any size will be a sea change in politics.

Subject: RE: BS: South Carolina - Whole new ballgame
From: Q (Frank Staplin)
Date: 26 Jan 08 - 01:17 PM

Polls (CNN website) one day before the primary-
Obama      38%
Clinton    30%
Edwards    19%
Undecided 13%

The state's large black vote wil be the decider (50% of the primary vote in 2004 was black)- Will they go heavily for Obama or give a good percentage to Clinton?

Not that the state's few electoral votes will count at the Convention, in any case there will be a split. Three superdelegates, not affected by the primary, have declared- Clinton 2, Obama 1.

Subject: RE: BS: South Carolina - Whole new ballgame
From: Ron Davies
Date: 26 Jan 08 - 01:20 PM

Any win for Obama will be a sea change-especially for the South. Don't underestimate the significance.

Subject: RE: BS: South Carolina - Whole new ballgame
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 26 Jan 08 - 06:19 PM

And the latest news is?

Subject: RE: BS: South Carolina - Whole new ballgame
From: Jeri
Date: 26 Jan 08 - 07:13 PM

News channels have announced Obama is the landslide winner. They don't yet know who will come in second and third - Clinton and Edwards are close.

Subject: RE: BS: South Carolina - Whole new ballgame
From: Jeri
Date: 26 Jan 08 - 07:19 PM

MSNBC and Fox have Obama with 70% of the vote, but there's less than 1% of the total votes in. I think they feel the exit polls are strong enough, and jibe with the early results, that they're confident he's won.

Subject: RE: BS: South Carolina - Whole new ballgame
From: Amos
Date: 26 Jan 08 - 07:24 PM

"Sen. Barack Obama, vying to become the nation's first black president, has won the South Carolina primary today, ABC News projects, boosted by record turnout of African-American voters in a state whose electorate appears polarized along racial lines.


While the race for second-place is too close to call, Sen. Hillary Clinton appears to be leading former Sen. John Edwards in the race for second. This is the second win of the nomination battle for Obama, who won the Iowa caucuses earlier this month, but this is his first win in a state with a sizable African-American population." CBS

Subject: RE: BS: South Carolina - Whole new ballgame
From: Alice
Date: 26 Jan 08 - 07:32 PM

I've been listening to CSpan this afternoon for the exit polls and projections. I still hope Edwards stays in the race.

Subject: RE: BS: South Carolina - Whole new ballgame
From: GUEST,GUEST
Date: 26 Jan 08 - 08:58 PM

I was half listening on the radio--I can't remember what they said about the exact numbers, but the tally for Obama was in the 50-55% range, I thought. I did hear them say that according to exit polls he swept 80% of the black vote, which is damned impressive for any candidate, but a measley 20% of the white vote, which doesn't bode all that well for Super Tuesday. Kinda makes it look like it's about race.

Which is clearly what the Hil & Bill show were going for, but me thinks, quite happily, it done did blowed up in their faces!

If Edwards and Clinton stay roughly tied, even with a 3rd place finish it will easily keep him in the race, because he has plenty 'o bucks for Super Tuesday.

Big loser is Clinton, hands down. She should have done way better coming off 2 wins, their previous popularity in the African American community, the spin everyone was putting on it. Even I didn't think Obama would sweep the black vote like that! Pretty breathtaking renunciation of the Clintons, I'd say.

Subject: RE: BS: South Carolina - Whole new ballgame
From: Q (Frank Staplin)
Date: 26 Jan 08 - 09:05 PM

Obama   54%
Clinton 27%
Edwards 19%

80% of the vote counted. A good solid win for Obama. Bodes well for other states with large black vote.

Subject: RE: BS: South Carolina - Whole new ballgame
From: GUEST,GUEST
Date: 26 Jan 08 - 09:15 PM

This is the breakdown from Charleston Post & Courier's web page:

Obama, Barack         271,015        55%
Clinton, Hilary         129,459        26%
Edwards, John           86,525        18%
Richardson, Bill      659        0%
Biden, Joe              627        0%
Kucinich, Dennis      512        0%
Gravel, Mike              227        0%
Dodd, Chris              214        0%

Apparently, the only voting block Clinton got the majority of was white women. That doesn't bode very well for her, either.

The results are sort of complicated, actually. So, if Obama won all the categories of black voters, and Clinton won white women, does that mean Edwards won white men? I can't find that info anywhere yet. If he did, that would be kinda bizarre.

Subject: RE: BS: South Carolina - Whole new ballgame
From: Charley Noble
Date: 26 Jan 08 - 09:29 PM

A truly impressive win for Obama: 55% for Obama, 27% for Clinton, 17% for Edwards. Evidently Obama outpolled Clinton in every major voting group as well. And his victory speech was impressive. 85% of the vote counted.

Charley Noble

Subject: RE: BS: South Carolina - Whole new ballgame
From: Azizi
Date: 26 Jan 08 - 09:46 PM

Senator Barack Obama wins the South Carolina Democratic primary by a whopping 28% more votes than Senator Hillary Clinton.

Barack Obama won 81% of the Black vote.

Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton tied among white men.

Barack Obama beat Hillary Clinton among White voters under 30 years of age.

Barack Obama beat Hillary Clinton among first time voters.

Thank you, South Carolina!

Subject: RE: BS: South Carolina - Whole new ballgame
From: Azizi
Date: 26 Jan 08 - 09:56 PM

There were close to 500,000 voters in the South Carolina Democratic primary.

Lsst week's Republican primary in South Carolina had 440,000 voters.

The previous record voter turnout for the South Carolina Democratic was 290,000 in 2004.

Subject: RE: BS: South Carolina - Whole new ballgame
From: Donuel
Date: 26 Jan 08 - 10:24 PM

WOW

Subject: RE: BS: South Carolina - Whole new ballgame
From: Q (Frank Staplin)
Date: 26 Jan 08 - 10:35 PM

Latest at CNN on South Carolina shows Obama getting 26 delegates, Clinton 13 and Edwards 5.

Subject: RE: BS: South Carolina - Whole new ballgame
From: GUEST,GUEST
Date: 26 Jan 08 - 11:10 PM

It is a very impressive win, and not surprising that Obama did so well among young & new voters--it looks like he brought 'em in single handed.

But remember, there is a precedent for this--Jesse won SC in 1984 & 1988. In 1988, Jesse Jackson won 11 primaries. Folks seem to forget he won 5 states in the Super Tuesday races, including a very impressive (over 50%) win in Michigan, 40% in Georgia, 80% in DC--enough to make the frontrunner in the race for a brief time. And his position on health care? Single payer universal health care.

This year, shockingly in my view, Obama ignored & wrote off Michigan. With the history of Jesse's numbers there in '88, it boggles my mind still that the Obama camp would be that...well, inexperienced to blow off that state with potentially enough delegates to swing a nomination if it goes all the way to the convention.

I'm really not trying to steal his thunder. But talk of "truly historic" just isn't true. Jesse kicked some serious butt in '88.

Subject: RE: BS: South Carolina - Whole new ballgame
From: Azizi
Date: 26 Jan 08 - 11:37 PM

Correction- there were 530,000 Democratic voters in South Carolina's Primary.

**

Wrapup Mr. Obama had a huge win tonight in South Carolina, across the board, on demographics and geographics.

Here are some important numbers, from the exit polls: Mr. Obama got about 80 percent of the black vote and about 25 percent of the white vote. Blacks made up 55 percent of the total, which is up from the 47 percent of the vote in 2004, indicating a motivated Democratic base. Black women made up 35 percent of the total vote. Mrs. Clinton won only 20 percent of black women. White women made up 25 percent of the total vote. Mrs. Clinton won 42 percent of them.
Here's something else to consider: Mr. Edwards won more white men than anyone else, drawing about 45 percent. But white men accounted for only 18 percent of the total (most white men here are Republicans)..."

http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/01/26/live-from-south-carolina-the-democratic-primary/index.html?ex=1359090000&en=38a8a9

**

When asked about Barack Obama's primary win in South Carolina, Bill Clinton referred to Rev. Jesse Jackson, who won South Carolina caucuses and not primaries in 1984 and 1988:

..."Another reporter asked what it said about Obama that it "took two people to beat him." Clinton again passed. "That's' just bait, too. Jesse Jackson won South Carolina twice, in '84 and '88. And he ran a good campaign. Senator Obama's run a good campaign here, he's run a good campaign everywhere."

The reference to Jackson seemed a way to downplay today's result in a state where a majority of voters are African American. Clinton was also asked today about charges of race baiting, and defended himself by citing testimony from John Lewis and Andrew Young, who marched with Martin Luther King. "I don't have to defend myself on civil rights," he said.



When asked about

Subject: RE: BS: South Carolina - Whole new ballgame
From: Azizi
Date: 26 Jan 08 - 11:54 PM

Sorry about that-I pressed submit too soon. Here's the excerpt from that article that I meant to post:

"My message has been 99.9% positive for 100% of this campaign," [Bill] Clinton said to reporters later. "I think that when I think she's [Hillary's] being misrepresented, I have a right to try to with factual accuracy set the record straight, which is what I've tried to do."

A number of prominent Barack Obama supporters and neutral observers have criticized Clinton's vocal role on his wife's behalf. John Kerry told National Journal that "being an ex-president does not give you license to abuse the truth."

"Did you notice he didn't specify?" Clinton said when asked about the comment. "They never do. They hurl these charges, but nothing gets specified. I'm not taking the bait today. I did what I could to help Senator Kerry every time he needed me, and every time he asked me. He can support whomever he wants for whatever reason he wants. But there's nothing for me to respond to."

..."Another reporter asked what it said about Obama that it "took two people to beat him." Clinton again passed. "That's' just bait, too. Jesse Jackson won South Carolina twice, in '84 and '88. And he ran a good campaign. Senator Obama's run a good campaign here, he's run a good campaign everywhere."

The reference to Jackson seemed a way to downplay today's result in a state where a majority of voters are African American. Clinton was also asked today about charges of race baiting, and defended himself by citing testimony from John Lewis and Andrew Young, who marched with Martin Luther King. "I don't have to defend myself on civil rights," he said"...

http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2008/01

**

With regard to Michigan and Florida's Democratic primaries: The Democratic Party rules committee voted not to seat delegates from Florida and Michigan at the convention if they don't change their date.Florida has jumped the gun and scheduled its presidential primary for January 29 -- before the primary season officially opens on February 5. Michigan's governor on Tuesday signed legislation setting its primary date on January 15.

Six major Democratic candidates have signed a pledge not to campaign in those states unless they comply with party rules.

By raising the issue about seating the delegates that she might win in those two primaries, Hillary Clinton is-again-trying to change the rules to suit her.

Subject: RE: BS: South Carolina - Whole new ballgame
From: Little Hawk
Date: 27 Jan 08 - 12:34 AM

Obama gave quite a good speech. If he and Edwards have the wisdom to team up and join forces at some point....well, that would finish the Clinton campaign, I think. I'd like to see that, because the Clintons don't represent the future, they represent the old guard entrenched power structure of the Democratic Party, and we don't need more of that.

Subject: RE: BS: South Carolina - Whole new ballgame
From: GUEST,GUEST
Date: 27 Jan 08 - 08:35 AM

Obama didn't give a good speech, he gave a great speech.

The thing that is getting so interesting is the way the Democratic Leadership Council honchos are abandoning the Clintons right now. John Kerry and Tom Daschle both came out swinging at Bill Clinton, and backing Obama this week.

So people should be asking themselves, why is the Republican wing of the Democratic party lining up behind Obama and going against their mentor and saviour, Bill Clinton--the only Democrat to be able to win the White House in a bazillion years? Hmmmm.

Azizi, I don't interpret the comparisons of Jackson to Obama an attempt to minimize Obama's win at all. The two candidates appeal to the same demographics in many ways, so when people start analyzing the numbers and looking to the historic record (which is what the analysts do), it is inevitable. Now that Obama won SC handily, they are going to start looking to 1988 as a comparison, because that year there was also a 3 candidate field going into Super Tuesday.

And for people like me and Dave "Mudcat" Saunders (I was an official Jackson delegate in MN 8th ward in 1984 and 1988) who do have an institutional memory, this race is shaping up to be more like 1988 than it is like any recent races.

And don't forget, even Ronald Reagan ran for president three times before actually winning the office. Obama may not make it this year, but man, that dude is sure positioned for the future after this.

Subject: RE: BS: South Carolina - Whole new ballgame
From: Ron Davies
Date: 27 Jan 08 - 08:52 AM

Jesse Jackson endorsed what were seen then--and probably still seen-- as radical positions--including reparations for slavery and a nuclear freeze. This marginalized him.

Obama has staked out a much more centralized position. And he probably also benefits from his opposition--Hillary's politics of personal destruction is, with Bill's help, turning into the politics of self-destruction.

Obama's resume and "big tent" approach is far more convincing than Jackson's ever was.

This is the time to reject false comparisons and cynicism and work to elect Obama.

Subject: RE: BS: South Carolina - Whole new ballgame
From: GUEST,GUEST
Date: 27 Jan 08 - 09:01 AM

The Democratic party apparatchiks marginalized Jesse Jackson, not his positions, which were really far less radical then, than John Edwards' positions are now.

But I do agree with you on this point Ron--Obama is a conservative Democrat, not a liberal one. Same is true of Hilary Clinton.

History has shown though, that if you are going to break through barriers of gender and race, you aren't going to do it with progressive candidates. Think: Margaret Thatcher. Clinton would be America's Thatcher.

To me, the country needs a progressive president far more than it needs to break the gender and race barriers this year. I know that sounds like "not this year, step to the back of the line" and it is to a certain extent. But if we have any hope whatsoever of salvaging the future for our children, it won't happen with either Clinton or Obama.

Subject: RE: BS: South Carolina - Whole new ballgame
From: Ron Davies
Date: 27 Jan 08 - 09:10 AM

Edwards' positions more radical now than Jackson's were then?

Wrong.

Reparations for slavery and a nuclear freeze--remember, the Cold War was still very much on--were far more radical then--and probably still are-- than any of Edwards' positions now.

And spare us the Communist terms to describe Democratic officials. Not that we'd ever believe you weren't totally objective, of course.

Subject: RE: BS: South Carolina - Whole new ballgame
From: GUEST,GUEST
Date: 27 Jan 08 - 09:17 AM

You know Ron, I find your views pretty racist and conservative. I suppose saying so will get me banned, but so be it.

Subject: RE: BS: South Carolina - Whole new ballgame
From: Jeri
Date: 27 Jan 08 - 09:22 AM

The Clinton keeps hammering away at the race nail. Whatever Bill did in the past, he currently paints Obama as The Black Candidate. Jesse Jackson WAS The Black Candidate, now Barack Obama is. Jesse Jackson didn't appeal to many White voters, so Barack Obama must be the same? Except Obama won in Iowa, and though his numbers were somewhat lower than The Clinton in NH, he won the same number of delegates.

With any luck, the Clinton will keep pushing the race button until people begin to see the inherent racism in that approach.

Subject: RE: BS: South Carolina - Whole new ballgame
From: Ron Davies
Date: 27 Jan 08 - 09:34 AM

GG--

My views are racist? Views such as promoting Obama's candidacy as the best thing to happen to the US since probably FDR.

Fascinating interpretation.

And don't worry, you won't be banned for saying it--just possibly ignored. Which unfortunately would be even worse for you.

It appears you are determined to hang on to your cynicism for dear life. And there is obviously no point to discussing with you--unless of course you decide to discuss facts.

It would certainly be intriguing to hear your evidence on why Edwards' positions now are more radical than the nuclear freeze and reparations for slavery were then.   But of course you might have to do some actual research. Hope that's not against your religion.

Subject: RE: BS: South Carolina - Whole new ballgame
From: Ron Davies
Date: 27 Jan 08 - 09:38 AM

Jeri--


Absolutely right. In Team Clinton's pathetic attempts to marginalize Obama, they are marginalizing themselves. As I said earlier, Hillary's politics of personal destruction are turning into the politics of self-destruction.

Now if Edwards signs on as Obama's VP, it'll all be over.

Subject: RE: BS: South Carolina - Whole new ballgame
From: GUEST,GUEST
Date: 27 Jan 08 - 09:40 AM

Nah, they are done with the race baiting, for now anyway. Bill's comments in recent days have been reaching for "above the fray" status, and they still have plenty of clout with conservative black Democrats.

I really don't attribute the black vote sweep by Obama in SC to the race baiting. I attribute it to voting along racial lines, which has been happening forever in SC. I didn't see a big sea change there. When there is a viable black candidate, blacks vote for that candidate in huge numbers.

The results are more complex than what the pundits are talking about. Hilary still did alright among black women voters. Where she tanked was with white men, just like Obama did. I don't care how they spin Obama's very impressive win over Clinton--which it certainly was--the bad news is STILL the demographics. Neither Obama or Clinton brought home the white male vote. And you can't win an election without bringing a whole lot of southern white male voters home with ya.

My daughter was in Greenville, SC last night, BTW (not connected to the election, just coincidence). Still waiting to hear how she thinks it went. Do we have any South Carolinians here in the forum?

Subject: RE: BS: South Carolina - Whole new ballgame
From: Ron Davies
Date: 27 Jan 08 - 09:52 AM

White male vote. As I said, Edwards has some clout there. If he signs on with Obama, it's all over.

And another fascinating tidbit--AP, I think: More votes in the Democratic primary than in the Republican primary--which was also hard-fought. So it appears there is a large group of Democratic votes now being tapped--in a traditionally heavily Republican state.

Subject: RE: BS: South Carolina - Whole new ballgame
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 27 Jan 08 - 10:12 AM

Clinton would be America's Thatcher? You'd better hope not!

Subject: RE: BS: South Carolina - Whole new ballgame
From: Ron Davies
Date: 27 Jan 08 - 10:24 AM

Thatcher had a lot more support than Clinton will ever have. Perhaps you can tell us why she had so much support, Richard. Should be an area of expertise for you, in contrast to some others.

Subject: RE: BS: South Carolina - Whole new ballgame
From: Azizi
Date: 27 Jan 08 - 10:25 AM

Bill Clinton mentioned Jesse Jackson in response to a reporter's question about what it said about Barack Obama that it "took two people to beat him ["two" meaning Bill and Hillary].

Imo, mentioning Jesse Jackson when he didn't have to was another way that the Clintons and their other surrogates are trying to reinforce the Clintons' campaign frame that Obama is the Black candidate.

Message for Bill-quite a number of people-particularly White people under 30 years {in the South and elsewhere} are turned off by your race baiting. Keep talkin. Keep blowing that racial dog whistle and you'll blow the election for Hillary and won't be in the White House again.

Please keep talkin. The USA will be better off if you do.

Subject: RE: BS: South Carolina - Whole new ballgame
From: Ron Davies
Date: 27 Jan 08 - 10:36 AM

Azizi--

Perfectly put.

Subject: RE: BS: South Carolina - Whole new ballgame
From: GUEST,GUEST
Date: 27 Jan 08 - 10:44 AM

Azizi, the comparisons to Jackson were inevitable. However, I agree that Clinton's comments about Jackson were made to scare the whiteys off voting for Obama. So it is STILL race baiting, but of a more subtle kind.

Here is the thing. If Obama wants to continue to carry the black vote, he can't really distance himself from Jackson. Jackson is still highly regarded among the civil rights generation who went out and fought the battles Obama is fighting now. If nothing else, their memories are way too long for Obama to get away with that.

And don't forget how deep Jessie's roots in Illinois go. A lot deeper than Oprah's, I can tell you that.

And Obama's support among the black political establishment players in the south is actually shockingly shallow. Clinton leads in endorsements from them by a wide margin, and Obama is a far distant second, with Edwards actually ahead of Obama in terms of African American party endorsements in Georgia. Hell, Obama has hardly any endorsements from the African American politicos in South Carolina!

Fearless predictions from over at Black Politics on the Web.

Like I keep saying, this is all a lot more complicated than meets the eye.

Subject: RE: BS: South Carolina - Whole new ballgame
From: Charley Noble
Date: 27 Jan 08 - 11:08 AM

Guest, Guest-

Consider becoming a member so we don't easily confuse you with other guests.

This will be an interesting primary battle, and it may require re-examing a whole lot of assumptions we've held for years, or not!

Who are clear examples of whom you describe as "the Republican wing of the Democratic party lining up behind Obama"?

Charley Noble

Subject: RE: BS: South Carolina - Whole new ballgame
From: Ron Davies
Date: 27 Jan 08 - 11:12 AM

GG-

You continue a wonderful chain of missing the point. Correct--in South Carolina Obama had hardly any endorsements from politicos. As I noted, Clinton's manager was quoted as saying Clinton had the best political machine in the state.

Yet Obama walloped Clinton.

That's the point.

The old political machine is broken. And Obama is building a new grass-roots network--all over the US.

Subject: RE: BS: South Carolina - Whole new ballgame
From: Riginslinger
Date: 27 Jan 08 - 11:18 AM

'"the Republican wing of the Democratic party lining up behind Obama"?'


                      It was interesting in New Hampshire when they did an analysis after, they found that more people with advanced degrees and higher incomes were apt to vote for Obama, and more of the working poor supported Hillary. One has to wonder what a "President Obama" would mean to the working poor, and what are they picking up in his message that puts them off?

Subject: RE: BS: South Carolina - Whole new ballgame
From: GUEST,GUEST
Date: 27 Jan 08 - 11:26 AM

Charley, haven't you ever heard of the Democratic Leadership Council? That group includes the Clintons, John Kerry, Tom Daschle, marginally John Edwards, and most of the US Congress that has endorsed Clinton already.

I would also refer to them as cowardly "centrist" Republican appeasers and capitulaters. :)

They are NOT the wing of the Democratic party to whom Senator Wellstone referred when he made the now famous statement that many Democrats try to steal: "I represent the democratic wing of the Democratic party."

Subject: RE: BS: South Carolina - Whole new ballgame
From: GUEST,GUEST
Date: 27 Jan 08 - 11:28 AM

Obama doesn't do well with the working poor because he opposes the interests of the working poor on the issues.

It ain't brain surgery.

Subject: RE: BS: South Carolina - Whole new ballgame
From: Ron Davies
Date: 27 Jan 08 - 11:38 AM

GG--


Obama "opposes the interests of the working poor"? So, have you opened a branch of Rig's "Smears R Us?"


Evidence, please.

Subject: RE: BS: South Carolina - Whole new ballgame
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 27 Jan 08 - 11:53 AM

This is thread drift, but it's relevant to a post by Ron Davies. Thatcher never had anything like a majority of those who voted. She benefitted from a divided opposition, including a fratricidal Labour Party, and a pretty dodgy electoral system.

Subject: RE: BS: South Carolina - Whole new ballgame
From: Azizi
Date: 27 Jan 08 - 11:55 AM

GUEST,GUEST, your use of the phrase "whiteys" is another form of race baiting.

I vehemently reject that term.

As to your assertion that "Obama doesn't do well with the working poor because he opposes the interests of the working poor on the issues", I ain't buyin Bill Clinton's fairy tales. And I ain't buyin yours.

Subject: RE: BS: South Carolina - Whole new ballgame
From: Amos
Date: 27 Jan 08 - 11:57 AM

The interests of the working poor, I would suggest, are served by, lessee -- less harassment by local law, less taxes taken out of their pay envelopes, decent schools to help their chioldren do better than they have, and universal health care.

WHich of these do yout hink Obama does not serve?


A

Subject: RE: BS: South Carolina - Whole new ballgame
From: Azizi
Date: 27 Jan 08 - 12:17 PM

And with regard to old school Black politicians & community figures such as Rev. Calvin Butts beholden to the Clinton machine, Black people can figure out for ourselves who has our back and who doesn't.

And speaking of Calvin Butts, its no coincidence that his church's social service agencies recently received millions of federal grants that were sponsored by Hillary Clinton.

Check out this comment from an African American poster to this article:

January 20, 2008,   
In Harlem, a Pastor Endorses Clinton
By C. J. Hughes
http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/01/20/clintonblack/


"Too little too late!

Clinton's tactic of attempting to garner black support by making nice with a few high-profile African Americans will NOT work. Talk to the average Black person, and they're disgusted with Clinton's race-baiting (Hilly and Billy both).

Hilly is attempting to play both sides of the fence: 1) confine Obama as the "black canditate" so as to instill fear in the heart of [fill in name of random middle-age white woman] in the suburbs; 2) then make nice with relic African American leaders (who by the way, are no longer relevant on the issues), so that she appears color-loving.

Hilly, you must think African Americans are idiots–this is precisely the issue with white so-called liberals. Their black & white (pun intended) thinking on issues of race."
— Posted by Reba

**

Here's another comment that was posted in response to the reporter's statement that there were 80 boisterous Clinton supporters in attendance when Rev. Butts announced his endorsement of Hillary Clinton:


"…The group [of Obama supporters] was clearly outnumbered by Clinton supporters, like Genieve Facey, 52, a Harlem resident and hair stylist who attends the church"

Excuse me, were you actually outside of Abysinnian Church today or did you just make that up? There were NO Clinton supporters outside the church and it was so sad that Hillary Clinton had her staff and tourist hold up Hillary signs to try to draw attention away from the Obama supporters who stood outside for over 3hrs.

I was there an saw it with my own two eyes. I challenge you to report the truth. I also challenge you to give a quote from the groups of Black and White Obama supporters who stood outside of the church and made it clear that they are voting for Obama because of his platform, not the color of his skin. Harlem is overwhelmingly supportive of Obama. Hillary Clinton is not a New Yorker and people here have no true allegience to her.

If your going to be slanted, at least get the facts straight."
— Posted by harlemnite

Subject: RE: BS: South Carolina - Whole new ballgame
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 27 Jan 08 - 12:22 PM

Sorry, but Obama will not give you a national health service. Only Kucinich supported that.

Reduced tax will make little difference to the "working poor". Tax cuts are for the rich.

Everyone wants "decent schools". The difference lies in how they say they will get them.

And what on earth do you mean by "harrassment by local law"? Everyone is supposed to obey the law, no?

Subject: RE: BS: South Carolina - Whole new ballgame
From: GUEST,GUEST
Date: 27 Jan 08 - 12:22 PM

Azizi, nobody is more anti-Clinton than me, but nice try painting me as a Bubba race baiter.

Ditto about you not liking me calling Ron whitey.

Sorry, but this honky don't play that white guilt tune.

Subject: RE: BS: South Carolina - Whole new ballgame
From: Azizi
Date: 27 Jan 08 - 12:42 PM

There you go again, GUEST,GUEST.

LOL!

Subject: RE: BS: South Carolina - Whole new ballgame
From: GUEST,GUEST
Date: 27 Jan 08 - 12:58 PM

"There you go again..."

I'm trying to hold my applause for this delicious irony.

If you don't mind my asking Azizi, how old are you?

Subject: RE: BS: South Carolina - Whole new ballgame
From: Peace
Date: 27 Jan 08 - 01:13 PM

"More than 532,000 people turned out to vote in South Carolina, almost double the number who voted in the 2004 Democratic primary and 100,000 more than voted in the Republican contest a week earlier."



If nothing else, it draws attention to the fact that 'business as usual' is not in the cards anymore. It shows the possibility of America having a Black president who is not as closely attached to multi-nationals/neocons as is Hillary. He ain't Kucinich, but he has a shot, and Edwards as VP would make it a great ticket.

Subject: RE: BS: South Carolina - Whole new ballgame
From: GUEST,GUEST
Date: 27 Jan 08 - 01:28 PM

It does indeed show there was lots of enthusiasm on the part of Obama's voters. However, if you know how to count delegates state by state, his win still isn't that significant. What will be significant is if the enthusiasm and momentum can be sustained.

Here is the thing. The Clinton machine dominated politics in the 90s for one reason: they knew how to count.

Hilary has a very simple, 4 state strategy. She has plenty of super delegates pledged to her already. Granted, they don't have to stay with her, but unless there is a complete electoral meltdown on Super Tuesday, the majority of her super delegates will stick with her.

The Clinton strategy is that all she has to do to win the nomination now is take 4 states: New York, New Jersey, Arkansas and California. If she does that, she doesn't have much to worry about.

I understand the excitement and enthusiasm people have for Obama's win yesterday. But in the big picture, all it tells us is black folks will vote as a block for Obama.

Subject: RE: BS: South Carolina - Whole new ballgame
From: Peace
Date: 27 Jan 08 - 01:31 PM

In the mid 1970s when Quebec and Canada were in turmoil with regard to possible separation, Rene Levesque won the election in Quebec (1976 (?)). Terry Mosher, better know as Aislin (a remarkably adept, intelligent and funny political commentator who did so through his cartoons) published one of the new Premiere with the usual cigarette hanging from his mouth and a caption that read, "OK. Everybody take a valium."

That cartoon came to mind when I heard the election results this morning.

Truthfully, I am not surprised. I have been saying for a while that imo Obama will be the next president. It was nice to hear that other people maybe think the same.

Subject: RE: BS: South Carolina - Whole new ballgame
From: Riginslinger
Date: 27 Jan 08 - 01:33 PM

GG - The other interesting element in all of this, looking back at Nevada, is, if the black vote in a block for Obama, Hispanics seem posed to vote in a block for Clinton. All of this is bad news for Edwards, certainly, but it doesn't really do anything to derail Clinton.

Subject: RE: BS: South Carolina - Whole new ballgame
From: Peace
Date: 27 Jan 08 - 01:34 PM

I do hear and understand what you're saying, GG. It really is about a few BIG states with lots of candidates. However, they have never had the option that has opened to them. They have the chance to shake up the 'power elite', and I no longer think that California is in Hillary's hip pocket. The results in the east will affect California results, and I do not figgure Hillary will win them all.

Subject: RE: BS: South Carolina - Whole new ballgame
From: Peace
Date: 27 Jan 08 - 01:47 PM

Something else that may be a factor in the NY and NJ elections is Black votes. This is the very first time that Black people have had a 'viable' candidate--don't ask me to explain what that means--for whom to vote. Obama was able to instill a trust in Black people and they turned out in large numbers to support him. The population of NYC is about 25% Black. I am aware the race is NOT about race, but demographics is demographics. I think for once that many Black people who had never had the chance to vote for someone they could 'believe in' (no insult to Shirley Chisholm intended) finally saw the possibility. And, they acted on it. Because Obama has not played the 'rce' card and because he's behaved more honourably than Hillay's crew, in this election I think that will count and be translated into votes for him.

Subject: RE: BS: South Carolina - Whole new ballgame
From: GUEST,GUEST
Date: 27 Jan 08 - 02:01 PM

Peace, Obama represents the interests of the power elite. But him in the White House, and all you have is a conservative Democrat in the White House who happens to be black.

And lots of black folks have been saying that--which is why the majority of the Black Caucus has endorsed Clinton--they know power when they see it.

A vote for Obama IS NOT a vote for change. He is a conventional, conservative Democrat, just like Harold Ford, who lost in Tennessee in 2006, and was almost immediately put in charge of the White Boy Club, also known as the Democratic Leadership Council.

It's become pretty clear in the past week they'd rather have a Good Negro in the White House they can control, than a very powerful woman whom they can't control.

Subject: RE: BS: South Carolina - Whole new ballgame
From: Peace
Date: 27 Jan 08 - 02:06 PM

We'll see. I look forward to Tuesday. Be interesting to see how this plays out.

I agree that there are few folks who are not controlled to a greater or lesser degree by big money. I don't agree that Obama is to the extent you think, but then I've been wrong before. Hell, I worked for McCarthy in 1967. Shows you what I know about politics.

Subject: RE: BS: South Carolina - Whole new ballgame
From: GUEST,GUEST
Date: 27 Jan 08 - 03:17 PM

Hell, I'm wrong all the time. I'm just playing devils advocate here, to go against the monolithic MSM mindset of most folks here. I've never voted for a winning presidential candidate in my life. Until Wellstone won as US senator in 1992, I hadn't voted for a winner in ANY federal election. Oh wait--that isn't true. I voted for Daschle when he ran for the House in SD. So that is twice exactly, in my adult life I've voted for a winning federal candidate. And I've been voting since 1970. So everybody should take what I say with a big grain of sourdough pretzel salt.

It is just bizarre to me though, how when the MSM says "it's a two way race" that everyone starts repeating it as if it is true. I truly don't give a damn who gets the nom, cuz I ain't voting for any of 'em! I just know enough not to accept everything the MSM as being even vaguely accurate, much less true.

The MSM is manipulating coverage big time on Democratic side, to keep Edwards coverage off the air, and prevent his anti-corporate message from reaching voters. So that makes me kinda fond of him as an underdog.

Obama isn't an underdog. He is John Kerry with black skin.

Subject: RE: BS: South Carolina - Whole new ballgame
From: Riginslinger
Date: 27 Jan 08 - 03:21 PM

"Obama isn't an underdog. He is John Kerry with black skin."

             Exactly, the main difference is, Obama doesn't bungle the lines the MSM feeds him.

Subject: RE: BS: South Carolina - Whole new ballgame
From: GUEST,GUEST
Date: 27 Jan 08 - 03:36 PM

And he's prettier too. And it goes without saying, far superior oratory skills to monotone Kerry. God, even seeing a photo of Kerry makes me go comatose.

Subject: RE: BS: South Carolina - Whole new ballgame
From: Peace
Date: 27 Jan 08 - 03:39 PM

Two-way race? Keriste, it's no wonder I don't listen to MSM anymore. We KNOW that lots can and will happen between now and the Fed election.

Funny what you say about never having voted for a winner in elections. I have about as often as you have--maybe twice or three times, and I've been voting since 1967 in Canuck elections.

I think things have gone so far past anything that can be salvaged that little surprises me in any election.

The way I see it:

1) Hillary screwed herself with the recent campaign tactics and she'll have a hard time getting that 'trust of the people' back into her camp.

2) Kucinich may have screwed up by NOT naming the candidate he'll vote for now that he is gone from the race.

3) Edwards is doing the most straight talk of the lot, and it's stuff what's left of middle America wants to hear, but he has no support beyond the 20% of voters who still seek 'family values' in their candidates.

4) I perceive Obama to be somewhere between Hillary and Edwards--that is, a fairly honest guy who has a shot at the presidency. People seem to be really tired of the same old bullshit from 'election machines'. Obama has been very clever in terms of when to talk and when not to. I was very disappointed that he never did speak up on behalf of Kucinich being kept out of so many debates. This leads me to the conclusion that the winning ticket will be Obama-Edwards.

5) I am still firmly of the mindset that there is NO WAY a Republican will get the votes from the American people to be the next president. They so thoroughly showed themselves to be bastards in the past seven years that voters would rather drink raw sewage than vote Republican.

I could be wrong on what I have said here. My calls on the big states?

New York--toss a coin. If Hillary wins (I hope she won't), it will be by a percentage or two. Not more than five.

New Jersey--Obama by a slim margin.

Arkansas--toss a coin.

California--Obama.

However, how that translates to real politick is beyond me. AND, I dream lots.

Subject: RE: BS: South Carolina - Whole new ballgame
From: Amos
Date: 27 Jan 08 - 03:53 PM

I favor the Trojan Horse dream of Bobert for obama.

A

Subject: RE: BS: South Carolina - Whole new ballgame
From: Riginslinger
Date: 27 Jan 08 - 04:19 PM

Well, if they roll him into the walled city, what will come crawling out?

Subject: RE: BS: South Carolina - Whole new ballgame
From: Ron Davies
Date: 27 Jan 08 - 04:20 PM

GG--

Your 4 state-approach--and Hillary won't have to worry--fails.

Why?--it's not winner-take-all. Even if Hillary gets most delegates in some of those, Obama will also get some--probably more now, as this win in SC--and Hillary's despicable campaign in general--becomes more and more publicized.

And he will also be picking up delegates in places she will get few.

Tsunami Tuesday--now--will never tell the tale--unless her campaign, not his, completely collapses--which ain't likely. But regardless, Obama will still be strong after Tsunami Tuesday.


It's wishful thinking on the part of any Hillary partisan to think otherwise.

Subject: RE: BS: South Carolina - Whole new ballgame
From: Azizi
Date: 27 Jan 08 - 04:35 PM

If you don't mind my asking Azizi, how old are you?
-GUEST,GUEST -

Suffice it to say that I'm an old soul.

or since this is Mudcat, perhaps I should have said that I'm a "merry ole soul".

:o)

Subject: RE: BS: South Carolina - Whole new ballgame
From: GUEST,GUEST
Date: 27 Jan 08 - 04:36 PM

Well, you better get on the horn and let the Clinton campaign know that Ronnie boy, cuz their strategy has been cut and pasted all over the politico internet for months.

BTW Ron, it's quiz time. Define "brokered convention".

Go.

Subject: RE: BS: South Carolina - Whole new ballgame
From: Azizi
Date: 27 Jan 08 - 04:45 PM

But speaking of the Democratic campaign being a whole new ballgame,
there's a real possibility that Bill Clinton's race baiting may have been what caused Ted Kennedy to decide to endorse Barack Obama.

"Sen. Kennedy to Endorse Obama
By Shailagh Murray

BIRMINGHAM, Alabama -- Sen. Edward M. Kennedy will endorse Sen. Barack Obama on Monday at American University, campaign sources said. The veteran Massachusetts senator follows his niece Caroline Kennedy, who today in the New York Times compared Obama to her late father.

The elder Kennedy's decision came after weeks of mounting frustration with the Clintons over campaign tactics, particularly comments that seemed to carry racial overtones. Kennedy expressed those frustrations directly to former president Clinton, but to no apparent avail. Yesterday afternoon, as Obama was racking up a South Carolina rout, the former president compared his wife's chief opponent to Rev. Jesse Jackson, who won South Carolina twice, in 1984 and 1988, when it was a caucus state.

Kennedy came to his decision to endorse Obama over the past week, people familiar with the endorsement said, although he has been seriously considering it since Iowa. Sources also said Kennedy told Obama of his decision on Thursday, in the heat of the Obama-Clinton rhetorical battle."...

http://blog.washingtonpost.com/the-trail/?hpid=topnews

Subject: RE: BS: South Carolina - Whole new ballgame
From: Azizi
Date: 27 Jan 08 - 05:21 PM

Here's a link to a YouTube video of Bill Clinton's Jesse Jackson comment.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qqd2dfjl2pw

There are 369 comments to date for this video. Those comments make interesting reading.

-snip-

Imo, Bill Clinton referance to Jesse Jackson in response to the reporter's comment was definitely a case of both minimizing the importance of Obama's huge win in the South Carolina primary and continuing the Clinton campaign's framing of Obama as a "Black candidate". If Bill Clinton wanted to just refer to a Democratic candidate winning the South Carolina primary and not receiving the Democratic nominee for president, he could have referred to John Edwards, who won the South Carolina primary in 2004.

And fwiw, in case folks haven't sensed it, I'm just too through with the Clintons. If Hillary does get the Democratic nomination for President, I won't vote for anyone in the Presidental slot.

Unfortunately for the Clintons campaign, there's a whole lot of Black folks {and non-Black folks} who feel the same way I do.

Subject: RE: BS: South Carolina - Whole new ballgame
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 27 Jan 08 - 05:22 PM

Two aspects of coverage of this campaign that strike me as a bit strange.

One is the persistent suggestion, notably from the Clinton camp that Obama is too young and inexperienced to be a plausible candidate. Whereas he is the same age as Bill Clinton was when running, and older than Kennedy.

And the other is the evident assumption that electing the wife of a previous president would be a dramatic demonstration of feminist advance. Whereas that's almost been a routine procedure in many other pretty sexist societies, as a way of getting over rules about term limits, or exploiting sentiment in the case of leaders who have died (eg Peron).

Subject: RE: BS: South Carolina - Whole new ballgame
From: Jeri
Date: 27 Jan 08 - 05:43 PM

Azizi, you and I agree on this. The Clinton is trying to use race as a wedge. It seems to have pretty much backfired, but the tactic is obvious and is beginning to appear a bit desperate.

I don't know if I'd vote for The Clinton if nominated. I sure don't want to find out.

The Clinton began the attack by accusing Obama of raising 'false hope'. What about hope makes it false? The impossibility of being elected? HA! I think we're seeing what real hope can do.

Subject: RE: BS: South Carolina - Whole new ballgame
From: GUEST,GUEST
Date: 27 Jan 08 - 05:50 PM

OK Azizi, so if the country plays by your rules to make it all "fair" and not "race baiting"--we can't compare this contest to the 1988 contest, because...?

I've been anti-Clinton since the day Bill announced he was running, so I'm just trying to figure out how to get in the "good liberal Democrat" line. What's the litmus test here?

I'll say this again--Obama won't do himself any favors, and nor will his supporters, by trying to put distance between himself and Jesse Jackson, as Obama already did this morning on the Georgie Porgie show.

Jesse was one of the first civil rights era leaders to endorse Obama. He has a constituency, and they aren't the under 30s (who are notoriously unreliable on election day).

Now, I'm guessing you aren't old enough to know much about the 1984 and 1988 elections. You don't have to say one way or the other, of course. But it is quite curious there is this sudden stormin' the castle mentality when Barak gets compared to Jesse Jackson.

So what's up with that? Does Obama think so little of Jesse? Is Jesse political poison? Then why did he seek Jackson's endorsement last year?

Glib answers like today's dismissive "that was 20 years ago" aren't gonna cut it, and it certainly won't stop people from asking him the questions about the inevitable comparisons--and what is different about him from Jackson.

It can't be just about "unity" because that was also the basis of Jackson's two runs for president--was what the Rainbow Coalition was all about.

So why does Obama need to run away from Jesse Jackson?

Subject: RE: BS: South Carolina - Whole new ballgame
From: Ron Davies
Date: 27 Jan 08 - 06:05 PM

Nobody is running away from Jesse--he was obviously a pioneer in the political arena, and Obama respects that.   As we've already said, Obama is aware that Team Clinton is trying to typecast him as the "black candidate". And for all his "Rainbow Coalition", Jesse was never able to transcend that label.

Obama has done so--from the start. He has all sorts of appeal on a non-racial basis--thinks on his feet, great wit, full of great ideas--the best being the "big tent"--and smart as a whip.

(Being black is by far not the biggest factor.)

It's a winning strategy.

Subject: RE: BS: South Carolina - Whole new ballgame
From: GUEST,GUEST
Date: 27 Jan 08 - 06:18 PM

I've got news for youse--before AND after the SC primary, the MSM had already made this contest all about race. So you can't just hang that conveniently on the Clintons (especially as a day after campaign tactic to deflect the race issue).

Last night, as I watched the MSNBC coverage, it stood out like a sore thumb--nearly every person on Obama's stage was black. Today, the MSM is showing that image over and over. And that, my friend, is what makes this all about race, whether any body likes it or not.

Cut to Clinton's stump speech in Nashville--she has an black woman introducing her, and every color of the rainbow all around her.

Again, Obama's camp wasn't thinking of the big picture. At this level of politics, I couldn't believe my eyes. It was a jaw-dropping sight, IMO. So pretty soon, there are going to be commercials with Barak bitching and whining about how it isn't about race, superimposed over that image. Racist? You bet. Effective in painting Obama as a black one trick pony? Most likely.

Subject: RE: BS: South Carolina - Whole new ballgame
From: Azizi
Date: 27 Jan 08 - 06:18 PM

What Ron said.

And what Jeri said too!

Subject: RE: BS: South Carolina - Whole new ballgame
From: Ron Davies
Date: 27 Jan 08 - 06:52 PM

GG-

No question, you beat even Rig for the presidency of the Sour Cynics Club. You really wiped him out with that last sally. Congratulations.

There are scads of pictures of Obama rallies with "every color of the rainbow". And there will be scads more.

You and your MSM--seems it should be MM anyway--are just too much a prisoner of your own convictions regarding media.

Not everybody in the US stays glued to the "MSM"--I'll learn your cute little abbreviation eventually--all day. Some of us actually have lives to lead.

And some who do look at the "MSM"--that was it, wasn't it?" are actually capable of thinking for themselves. Though to be sure I don't expect the president of your club to realize that.

Subject: RE: BS: South Carolina - Whole new ballgame
From: Riginslinger
Date: 27 Jan 08 - 08:03 PM

And then there are the people who get their political convictions from the pulpit. No thinking for yourself there, what?

Subject: RE: BS: South Carolina - Whole new ballgame
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 27 Jan 08 - 08:09 PM

Looking at these YouTube clips of Obama's victory speech the crowd of supporters in the background doesn't look particularly black. (A bit short of people with facial hair, but perhaps that's the way South Carolina is.)

Subject: RE: BS: South Carolina - Whole new ballgame
From: GUEST,GUEST
Date: 27 Jan 08 - 08:17 PM

OK McGrath. I'm sure it was just my hallucination.

And I couldn't agree more that Obama ain't black. He is quite high tone actually. And the youth--they love him of course.

Group hug.

I feel so much better knowing Obama has all the moral high ground. And gushes unity, unity, unity.

He will take us to the promised land, I'm sure.

Pray to god, and hope the Clintons go straight to hell.

Amen.

It is Sunday, after all.

Subject: RE: BS: South Carolina - Whole new ballgame
From: Q (Frank Staplin)
Date: 27 Jan 08 - 08:25 PM

Hmmm- a closet Huckabee supporter?

Subject: RE: BS: South Carolina - Whole new ballgame
From: GUEST,Guest
Date: 27 Jan 08 - 08:37 PM

Nope, on the Wavy Gravy Train, Q. Just shootin' the breeze like everybody else around here. I'm a Nobody for President supporter.

In past lives I was a Rainbow Coalition delegate in '84 and '88, and I voted for Nader in 2000 and 2004.

Which makes me the anti-christ around here, but hey--I love being hated around this place!

Subject: RE: BS: South Carolina - Whole new ballgame
From: Riginslinger
Date: 27 Jan 08 - 09:42 PM

Why?

Subject: RE: BS: South Carolina - Whole new ballgame
From: GUEST,Guest
Date: 27 Jan 08 - 10:22 PM

Why what?

Subject: RE: BS: South Carolina - Whole new ballgame
From: Amos
Date: 27 Jan 08 - 10:30 PM

Nah, you got us wrong GG -- we only hate you when you act hateful.



A

Subject: RE: BS: South Carolina - Whole new ballgame
From: GUEST,Guest
Date: 27 Jan 08 - 10:41 PM

OK, so I just heard back from the daughter who was in Greenville SC last night. At a predominantly African American bar with a friend from school in North Carolina, who is from Greenville. They wanted to check out the "historic moment" scene--as tourists, mind you. She said they haven't been following the race at all, really.

Lots of partying in the name of Obama apparently, but she felt totally out of place, rather than feeling the love. And this is a girl who has no lack of experience being the only white kid in the room. Culture shock. South Carolina just isn't Minnesota. But they had a good time before they headed back over the state line to listen to bluegrass in Asheville.

Historic moments aren't really all they are cracked up to be, are they?

Subject: RE: BS: South Carolina - Whole new ballgame
From: Ron Davies
Date: 28 Jan 08 - 09:52 PM

GG--

It may slander your daughter--but, after all we only have you as the source--so we have to take your word for it: after the Obama victory your daughter and a friend--white, I presume--went--"as tourists, mind you" to a bar in SC which has a black clientele.   "As tourists" --or perhaps as anthropologists--to observe the curious customs of the natives? Perhaps disappointed they did not communicate by drumming?

And felt surprised at being out of place. Poor girl. She seems to have learned her social skills from you.

Your lesson from this: " Historic moments aren't all they're cracked up to be."

Possible--rather likely--subtext you mean to convey: Obama supporters are not as welcoming as we think.

Sorry, that bears a strong resemblance to total drivel.

More likely interpretation: they realized the two white girls were only there to observe.

Perhaps you should meet Richard--the two of you can compare notes on recommended techniques of genteel racism.

Try going to an Obama rally on a college campus with many ethnic groups.   Might well be a better experience. But it would help if you actually were there for the reason the rest are there--enthusiasm for Obama and what he stands for.

What music do you play or sing? Sounds like you actually must be close to tone-deaf. Certainly socially tone-deaf.   And unfortunately you've passed it on to your daughter.

Why do I get the suspicions you are still desperately seeking to justify your cynicism?

There, there, it's all right. You can be as cynical as you want. You've earned the right to your crabbed, narrow, bitter outlook on politics.

Just please don't complain when the country leaves you behind.

Subject: RE: BS: South Carolina - Whole new ballgame
From: GUEST,Guest
Date: 29 Jan 08 - 08:51 AM

Sorry Ron, your racist presumptions are wrong--my daughter's friend is African American. Perhaps you skipped over the part where I said they ended up driving back to Asheville and going to a bar with a bluegrass band before calling it a night. They left the Greenville bar, because they were BORED. Not enough excitement, action, whatever for kids who thought there would be a party. What she said didn't meet her expectations was they went expecting a big party atmosphere when Obama won, and they didn't find a big party just a regular Saturday night.

I said she went as a tourist, because she was literally a tourist--her friend's family home is in Greenville. They went to an upscale sort of place apparently--a young people's place that has a predominantly African American clientele, but not exclusively, from the sounds of it. Just that she was in the minority, is all I was saying. She also didn't know anyone, which is why she felt "out of place". The young people she was hanging out with are hometown friends of her college friend.

Perhaps you've heard Ron, college kids do this thing where they go to each other's family homes on the weekend, and go out and party with the hometown friends. They are fed free meals, drink for cheap, and check out the scene in each other's families and hometowns.

Maybe you suffer from Animal House syndrome?

Subject: RE: BS: South Carolina - Whole new ballgame
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 29 Jan 08 - 09:09 AM

Ron even by your standards that was a disgraceful attack on Guest's daughter. But you still have a lot to learn from the original Gargoyle and of course the unlamented Martin Gibson. Keep it up! You're getting there!

Subject: RE: BS: South Carolina - Whole new ballgame
From: Riginslinger
Date: 29 Jan 08 - 10:29 AM

Martin Gibson? He sounds like a hybrid guitar.

Subject: RE: BS: South Carolina - Whole new ballgame
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 29 Jan 08 - 01:43 PM

"Lots of partying in the name of Obama apparently, but she felt totally out of place, rather than feeling the love."

That did rather read as if GUEST,guest was saying there was a celebration going on, but that the daughter felt excluded and unwelcome ("rather than feeling the love"), with an implication that that was because she was white, rather than simply that she felt it was boring because the regulars weren't getting excited enough by the election results.

I'm glad it wasn't the way Ron Davies misread it, and that the record has been set straight, because that's just the kind of anecdotal misunderstanding that can take on a life of its own as it gets passed around.

I don't know about South Carolina, but round my way people don't always get that excited in pubs even on big election nights. Or even on big match says - it all depends on the pub.

Subject: RE: BS: South Carolina - Whole new ballgame
From: Peace
Date: 29 Jan 08 - 02:06 PM

Ron is not a racist. That you can count on.

Subject: RE: BS: South Carolina - Whole new ballgame
From: Little Hawk
Date: 29 Jan 08 - 02:27 PM

No, he is so clean that he squeaks! ;-)

Subject: RE: BS: South Carolina - Whole new ballgame
From: GUEST,Guest
Date: 29 Jan 08 - 09:51 PM

Well, I just reread what I wrote again, trying to figure out how Ron came up with that classic spin. I can't figure out how he dreamed up that scenario.

There was an election party that they went to at the bar. They went, because her friend's friends were going to be there, and they figured they would check out the scene.

My daughter has lots of African American friends here in MN from high school, hence my saying she was comfortable here being in the minority racially. But South Carolina is culturally different--both black culture and white culture--than MN. It was that combination of cultural differences and not knowing any of the kids that she said made her feel out of place. Which is par for the course for someone her age, just spreading their wings.

Anyone who has been around college kids on Saturday night would certainly know how quickly they get bored.

And if you have ever been part of an historic moment, you know it is rarely all it's cracked up to be--which is exactly what I told her.

But she is diggin' the southern cookin'! Said dinner was great, and her friend's house was way cool--her friend's mom is an artist & dad an architect. So there were red concrete floors, and brushed metal everywhere.

Ah, to be young and adventuring around the country again with those fresh eyes!

Subject: RE: BS: South Carolina - Whole new ballgame
From: Riginslinger
Date: 29 Jan 08 - 10:22 PM

"Ah, to be young and adventuring around the country again with those fresh eyes!"


                      Yeah! Me and Jack Kerouac will second that.