BS: South Carolina - Whole new ballgame

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.

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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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 - 10:22 PM

Why what?

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 - 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: 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 - 08:17 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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 - 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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 - 04:35 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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 - 03:17 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: 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 - 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 - 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: 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: 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 - 01:31 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: 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 - 01:13 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 - 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: 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 - 12:22 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: 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: 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: 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