Tonight in South Carolina

Joe, in spite of whatever other failings you have as a blogger, I've always thought your writing was stylistically impressive. But what the hell is your last sentence supposed to mean? Why are you sad that Bill and Hillary are on the "wise" side of a political bet? Did you, in all of your political wisdom, expect them to tilt at windmills? Or are you really saying that your "experience" isn't worth a hill of beans, and that Bill and Hillary would be better off ignoring it, like Obama has?

Mike M-

It hasn't been representative of the party in general since LBJ was in office. But the extraordinarily high democratic primary turnout in a supposedly red state makes me think that the party and the times may be a' changin (to borrow from everybody's favorite campaign term).

Hey Joe, your 40 years of experience is perhaps a good thing, but you ought to consider the possibility that it also makes you a bit out-of-touch with where the country is evolving. I remember sometime back before Iowa you mused that you thought that Iowans would ultimately pick "the white guy," i.e. Edwards.

I think you underestimate the evolution of the American people. Those of us who are younger than you see the world in very different terms than you and your boomer ilk. Every year that passes, our perspectives increase in numbers. In 20 or 30 years, there will be much less racism and homophobia in this country as the older generation dies out. America is going in the right direction generationally.

I don't know if Obama will make it this time or not, but he is on the leading edge of a fundamental change in our politics. This is not entirely due to him, so much of it is generational.

How many times does Democratic turnout exceed Republican at the primaries in SC? And what does it say about Obama that he won so massively in a state which is not typically Democrat, when faced with the Clinton machine? Sorry Joe, he is on the right side of the bet, and his bet is the better one for Super Tuesday.

Joe Klein:

Great writer, not very good journalist.

"always thought your writing was stylistically impressive"

Oh Anon, I don't know where you came by this impression, but boy, I can tell you that J/K's writing is a stylistic and even grammatical disaster.

But! There's something in this ocean of ignorant, tone-deaf speculation I rather agree with. To wit: the real audacity in Barack Obama's campaign is his outrageous belief that the entire country, not just Democrats, wants to see a straight up election; that the entire country is tired of the pestilence of tactical tricks that the Clintons learned from their co-dynasts, the Bushes.

OK, I don't know what a straight up election is, but indeed, Obama's gambit is that the country hates the current powers that be so much that they want radical, extremist change, Joe Klein's petulance about it be damned. It's not a bad bet, really, and there's no way Clinton can harness any of the anger people feel for the Bushies: no one wants to see their horror diminished incrementally. Ron Paul rallies around a REVOLUTION blimp, fer chrissakes. Clinton can't harness that sentiment, doesn't seem to want to, and indeed, I hope she doesn't get the nomination.

I hate to tell you, Joe, but RKA is absolutely right: people aren't buying what you're selling anymore. The fact that you think Obama has made "a hell of a bet" and is only a long shot says a lot. How do you explain his popularity? How do you explain his delegate-count lead?

Even if Hillary gets the nomination this round, the people hungry for radical overhaul will be knocking down the door.

(Such are my audacious hopes in these, the last minutes of Saturday, January 26, 2008. Datta. Dayadhvam. Damyata. Shantih shantih shantih).

I know I passed into the non-desiring bliss of the peace which passeth all understanding above, but I thought I'd come back to express my downness with digby:

"Obama, for instance, once again did extremely well among young people of all races, which it seems to me is much more salient than the media have yet to acknowledge. If he keeps this up, we will see an entire generation making its home in the Democratic Party and that is a tremendous advantage."

Word.

@Anon:

Good point. Though I obviously have a dog in this race, I hope you have a fantastic weekend.

I'm glad to see your belated realization about Obama's audacity, Joe...the fact that he's attempting to transcend both tactical and strategic concepts by aiming even higher seems to have thrown the Clintons off their game.

I guess they've honed their knives so sharp in preparation for the Republican onslaught that they don't know how to combat Obama's hope without cutting themselves.

I do not see how there is any other take here than Obama is the clear leader. He won Iowa, which should have ended any speculation that he couldn't win the white vote. He had more delegates in NH and NV, in very tight races. The former apparently turned on media coverage, rather than anything else.

He won resoundingly in SC, in a red state in an open primary, with an enormous turnout.

All of these achievements have taken place in the face of a very negative media environment focused on identity politics. Turnout in all these races has been very high, indicating a commitment to a demand for a fundamental change by the voters turning out in these races.

And he did this with arguably the most effective president in the postwar era (Eisenhower is the other candidate) in full bore opposition to him. Imagine the opportunity for transformation into the 21st century if president Clinton were to endorse Obama.

That won't happen, of course. But Obama won as big as he could have won, with all the forces arrayed against him as could have been arrayed.

Obama beat the Big Dog. It did't have to be that way. But the Clinton campaign chose to make it that way. If they now choose to play identity politics into superduper Tuesday, then we'll see what happens.

All I know is that if the media will listen to what Tom Brokaw said to Chris Matthews after the pundits were embarrassed by the NH results, then we may have an opportunity for a real result on SuperDuper Tuesday.

So, Joe, give it some thought. It doesn't matter what Caroline says. What matters is what the voters say. And they have spoken very strongly for a fresh new voice.

More interesting, in some ways, is the question of what this all means for Clinton's ultimate electability. This was supposed to be at worst a 5-10 point defeat - and suddenly we see a 30 point annihilation. Is the real story here that Obama has been gaining momentum steadily, unnoticed by the spin-obsessed media, and that SuperTuesday will show him as a winner by a margin of 5-10 per cent? Why did Clinton suddenly make that panicky grab for MI and FL delegates?

-eerie almost, the absence a palpable presence, as if the rooms were filled with ghosts.

Take it down a notch. This is a blog post, not an attempt at the Great American novel.

I wish you were right about the moral reprimand, but it sounds more like one of those imaginary Joe Klein things, like the hippies who are holding up the FISA bill.

Joe, thanks and well done. I agree it is sad to see the Clinton in such a place.

Obama's bet may be audacious and cynical experience may tell you it's risky. But here's the thing. It's the only bet an honourable man could make in good conscience.

basilbrush (great name)

The turn out is a big story. It must have GOP candidates sweating all over (and all over the country) (ewww. icky image there)

I guess I have clintonitis, I become sick when I see them, hear them, could they just go to Mars and be the royals there.

Robert-

Turnout should be the second-biggest story, and dove-tails with the 'Obama wins' narrative since he is driving some seldom-seen demographics to the polls. It's not just that more folks voted for Democrats than Republicans in South Carolina, nor is it just the fact that Obama got more votes than McCain and Huckabee COMBINED in the primary. It's the fact that South Carolina republicans had been told for weeks that their primary could decide a very muddled field. South Carolina was the last best place where the Republican field could be sorted out in time to start marshaling forces against the Democrats. And STILL more folks showed up to vote for democrats.

If I was a Republican strategist, I'd be plotzing right now.

Anon,

Yep. All of that.

And BTW. What's plotzing? (it doesn't sound good)

The difference between the past and the future is so damned right. The older folks won't vote for him, and the younger ones vote for him for the first time.

I think the year 1960 is a watershed moment. People born before then don't seem to get Obama, and they won't trust America (themselves?) to vote for him. But those born after then do. At least in my group of acquaintences and family.

I hope as people become more educated--if old dogs can learn new tricks--he will make it all the way.

Sooner or later the primary voters are going to catch on that Obama's pixie dust cult of personality can't prevail in the general election. The problem is that it's based on a completely disingenuous ruse - that he can be both the great black hope and someone who also transcends the partisan divide. I guarantee you those South Carolina African Americans did not believe they were signing up for a Democrat who'se going to co-operate with the likes of today's right wing GOP. Co-operate at what? Making sure every last American job winds up overseas? Rolling back the New Deal? Appointing judges who will reverse Affirmative Action gains? Shrinking employment in the public sector, the very employment which has long been the basic financial underpinning of the Black Middle Class? Or maybe co-operate in making sure every white kid has the freedom of choice to attend a publicly financed all white private school? Well, maybe fixing Social Security. Yeah, the GOP wants to "fix" it all right - fix it once and for all but good.

Sooner or later the primary voters are going to catch on that Obama's pixie dust cult of personality can't prevail in the general election. The problem is that it's based on a completely disingenuous ruse - that he can be both the great black hope and someone who also transcends the partisan divide. I guarantee you those South Carolina African Americans did not believe they were signing up for a Democrat who'se going to co-operate with the likes of today's right wing GOP. Co-operate at what? Making sure every last American job winds up overseas? Rolling back the New Deal? Appointing judges who will reverse Affirmative Action gains? Shrinking employment in the public sector, the very employment which has long been the basic financial underpinning of the Black Middle Class? Or maybe co-operate in making sure every white kid has the fredom of choice to attend a publicly financed all white private school? Fixing Social Security. Yeah, the GOP wants to "fix" it all right - fix it but good.

Older and "Wiser", I agree that the primary voters are catching on to something. Fortunately, that something is that the lie that Obama is a Republican in sheep's clothing.

Can you ditch the pseudo Blackspeak?

You don't come off very well - more like a Romney Cringe Moment, if you ask me.

The SC primary has made most, if not ALL of you at Time look like fools. Race and gender didn't play as big a role as you thought, despite the media's attempt to puff it up.

I will say this, though:

At least YOU had the sense NOT to refer to the perfectly normal activity of addressing a constituancy's issues as 'Playing the Race Card' or 'pandering' - so a big complement to you on that.

However, I think that you represent the 'BAU' mindset: the idea that Obama can't appeal to both sides. I don't think he 'made a hell of a bet' at all. I've noted that this is the SECOND time that the media has tried to start a fire and only got smoke...

No one will have to "play" the race card in order for it to dominate the general election.
IF Harold Ford, with all he had going for him couldn't win in Tennesee, no black Democrat is going to win any red state any time soon. Obama's delusion that he can wish away the divide notwithstanding. And the only blue state he could count on would be the idylic ethanolland we know as Iowa. Forget about New York and California, to name just two. The Big Blue states have a political culture of inter-ethnic turf contention never seen in the early primary states. Plus tons of first and second generation immigrants from China, Russia, Korea, Eastern Europe and yes Mexico, all of whome vote like white sheriffs in the Jim Crow South. Obama would be lucky to break even in the major cities while losing 2 to 1 in the suburbs. Say hello to President-elect Mitt "The Robot" Romney.

I don't know how I missed it in the first go 'round, but I would like to call attention to the fact that JoeK began this post instructing us to "make no mistake." And then he goes on to make a whole lot of non-falsifiable (to put it charitably) claims.

One of those claims is that the "churchified African-American middle class" is the "Democrats' canary in a coal mine." If it's true that the party sends this demographic to the polls waiting to see if it comes back alive, well, I wish it would stop doing that.

Anon, when it comes to JoeK's horrible writing, it's usually most egregious when he tries to turn a cliché. Not pretty; often hilarious.

Older and Wiser: I hear Obama listens to people who send him letters and $3.01. Try that instead.

klink is just trying to come across as the independent observer in the field, when we see his marks on the tootsies of the evil one like neon signs along the roads of crapitalism...

Always nice to get a - what was this anyway, a lecture in morality? - from the guy who lied through his teeth about authoring "Primary Colors."

Before drawing any conclusions about what Bill meant, what the racial controversy meant,etc, maybe we should look at the situation BEFORE that occurred.

http://www.cbsnews.com/htdocs/pdf/Dec07b-Dems.pdf December 17-18, 2006
Keep in mind that this was a poll taken in SC a couple of weeks before Iowa...

.............All Whites Blacks
Obama 35% 14% 52%
Clinton 34% 42% 27%
Edwards 13% 27% 2%

according to the exit polls Obama got 24% of the whilte vote...in other words, he added 10% since december. Clinton got 19% of the black vote, losing 8% from december. Clinton also wound up with six percent less of the white vote.

What actually happened is that undecided blacks went entirely toward Obama -- and this probably happened well before the recent controversies. This is reflected in a PPP poll taken on January 11-12...

http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/pdf/PPP_SC_Release_011308.pdf

In this poll, Obama has 68% of the black vote, and Clinton has 19%, with 10% still undecided.

In other words, as usual, Joe is full of crap. Hillary's numbers in the black community were where they wound up before most of the factors that Joe claims had an impact even occurred.

The only thing that appears to have happened is that "non-black men" voted more heavily for Edwards this time around (44%). Hillary maintained a plurality of "non-black women" (42%).

If one were to superimpose the racial breakdown from New Hampshire (where 95% of the voters were white) on these exit polls, Obama would have wound up in a distant third place, with 24-25% of the vote. In New Hampshire, Obama wound up with 38% of the white male vote, and 33% of the white female vote. In SC, Obama wound up with only 27% of the white males, and 22% of the white females.

And based on the racial demographics of the Super-Duper Tuesday states from previous democratic primaries (see http://blog.washingtonpost.com/behind-the-numbers/2008/01/demos_for_next_dem_primaries.html ) if Obama gets only 25% of the white vote, he's toast in every state but Georgia.

If the SC results are some kind of repudiation of Clinton's tactics by black voters, it is equally a repudiation of Obama's tactics by white voters.

One other point -- if this was some kind of " a moral reprimand delivered to Bill and Hillary Clinton by a united Democratic Party--but especially by the African-American segment of that party", why didn't Edwards do better among the African American "segment"? No one has campaigned more on the issues of poverty and economic opportunity than Edwards has, yet he wound up with less than 3% of the black vote.

This was an excellent post.

Joe:

Now that this is done, your commentary on the counts of Black faces at caucuses bring to mind a question:

WHY do you think that your own party holds caucuses in which almost NO Black faces appear?

At this point, I hand you back your own chestnut:

"a silent, decorous protest against him by a segment of the Democratic Party that was always there for him in the past, the churchified African-American middle class, a group that represents the Democrats' canary in the coal mine when it comes to injustice."

This is a very astute observation, but when it comes to Republican conduct as it relates to race, observations like these are tossed out in favor of an overly-rightious rehash of American history a la Southern Strategy - something to which you've even contributed to.

Connecting THOSE two dots would go far in being able to discern why your own party is so deficient in it's approach to Black Americans.

The events of the past few days are a great lesson for you and other Republicans who participate in the Great Denial-A-Thon when it comes to your party's conduct on racial issues.

Shorter Joe:

I told the Clintons that that Bill should worry about unseemliness!

See? I'm always right!

Obama surrogates suggest that criticism of his inexperience or voting record is "racist". They also suggest that compliments (Joe "Obama is attractive and articulate" Biden and Bob "I like the fact that his family has a Muslim background" Kerry) are also "racist".

If these are the racial eggshells upon which Obama and his supporters expects Americans to tread, he's already lost the nomination.

But when you actually compare what they're saying, the Obama camp (and Obama himself) are doing just as much smearing as the Clintons. Obama takes jabs at Hillary left and right, and they're frequently unfair. I'm not saying that Obama is going overboard; as far as I can tell, neither camp is playing particularly dirty. But similar comments by the two teams are treated very differently: Clinton is called dirty and Obama is seen as above the fray.

I can't think of any explanation for this level of distortion except that it is an attempt to obliterate the Democratic front-runner. Presumably, when and if Obama overtakes Hillary the character assassination will switch to him.

Am I just being paranoid? I don't know. But I do know that the portrayal of the Clintons as dirty politicians just doesn't fit the facts, and the stories of Bill being a divisive attack dog aren't supported by the video clips of what he's saying.

"...the entire country is tired of the pestilence of tactical tricks that the Clintons learned from their co-dynasts, the Bushes..."

You think the Bush family created BJ Clixon?

Sweet sassy moleassy.

Yappa,

Atrios has said that there is the news and then there is talking about the news. I think that the discussion on the shows such as Hardball have been relentless in projecting their point of view about what was said, apart from the reality of what was said.

"Presumably, when and if Obama overtakes Hillary the character assassination will switch to him." I suspect so.

Remember when everything that was said about him was, when will he attack Hillary? He is behind, the only way he can catch up is to attack her. At that point neither were directly attacking the other. And, note how quickly they got rid of Edwards, who is supposedly unliked by the media -- days of haircut stories.

I suspect the Obama attack narrative will be repeating stories and endlessly running commericials produced by attack groups on his supposed Muslim background, lack of experience, youthful drug use, etc. etc. And, endless speculation about will southerners vote for an African-American.

Hillary Clinton's loss in South Carolina was a "reprimand delivered ... by a united Democratic Party"? How does that make any sense? How do primary voters in a single small state speak for a "united Democratic Party"? This is absurd on its face.

And what is Joe's last sentence supposed to mean? Joe thinks Obama is on the losing side of the bet, but he thinks that the other side of that same bet is the "wrong" side for the Clintons to be on. Whatever.

Yappa, I think it's actually pretty hard to make the argument that Hillary was ever the Dem frontrunner.

And, if I'm not sure what you mean by Obama's attacks. No doubt they're out there, but nothing has registered for me on the level of what the Clintons have said.

AcidJ,

She is still the front runner in the national polls.

"...he's attempting to transcend both tactical and strategic concepts by aiming even higher...."

Ah, taking the moral high ground is itself an age-old political ploy.

As for the idea that we're looking at "...the leading edge of a fundamental change in our politics...." Just keep believing that. The folks who run things love it when a new generation of true believers comes along.

And tell me, when HRC takes primaries where 55% of the voting population is not black will the voters then be rebuking Obama?
The "Clintons play the race card" meme was invented by the Obama campaign (it began with Donna Brazile calling Bill's "fairytale" comment a racial slur) and EVERYTHING the Cintons have said since has been branded as playing the race card. Absurdly so.
Bill's citation of Jackson's rainbow coalition win in SC was not a racial swipe. Jackson could never expand his coalition to include enough working class whites to win nationally. That is simply true.
It remains to be seen if Obama can do what Jackson couldn't and it is not racist to point out that he shares Jackson's difficulty.
And Iowa as a caucus state proves nothing, Obama lost New Hampshire and Nevada and now on the brink of losing Florida he is trying to convince everyone that we Florida voters, more than the total citizens who have voted to date, don't count.
Now tell me again whose spin is "sociopathic"?

She is still the front runner in the national polls.

Ah. Well, here's to the continuation of the decline in her lead.

Why are the Clintons supporters all over race? Only a month ago, Obama was being asked why blacks were not supporting him, and he said they shouldnt until they know his policies. Clinton picked up the endorsement of black leaders in Alabama in Oct after they stated clearly they didnt think Obama had a chance "because he was black". Why would she be propagating bigotry or is this one of the "do what it takes to win"? Edwards is on record saying if you are not voting for Obama because he is black or for Clinton because she is a woman, dont vote for him.

Obama represents IL which is 12% black, last time I checked he got in with over 50% vote. He got rural Nevada, 13/17 counties.
Come on Clintonians, the only battle there is here is between the past and the future

What about the youth vote?

"which was, of course, a history lesson not a race jab. Of course."

The irony that this was written by Joe Klein...

I disagree that Bill was not expecting the landslide. I think he deliberately set out, in the lead-in to the SC primary, to accomplish two things: bring Obama down from the "Change" pedestal above the mean streets of the fray Obama had set himself on by goading him until he cracked, as he finally did during the debate in Myrtle Beach.

Thus, Obama became just another politician, not the shining symbol of Hope he started out to be, and he was now fair game.

Then, Bill needed to break Obama's wise tactic of carefully framing himself as a candidate for all the people, not just as an "African American" candidate. Again, by attacking Obama as viciously as he did, Bill alienated the African Americans who might have voted for the Clinton co-candidacy, resulting in the landslide.

Canny politician that he is, Bill knew that the landslide aspect of the vote in SC would be seen as a racial vote, and would further polarize the electorate (especially the White voters in other states), who will now see Obama's victory in SC as racial.

Since there are far fewer Black than White voters nationwide, Obama's chances of winning are now diminished even further.

I spent 10 weeks at Penn Center 24 years ago back when the Peace Corps thought that training in South Carolina was relevant to life in Africa. I doubt if 10 white people lived on St. Helena Island at the time. I know there has been some development there since. But the thought of HRC assembling a lilly white crowd there tells me she's on top of her game with logistics and transportation, but not so much with appealing across racial lines.

If Joe Klein is right that "the entire country is tired of the pestilence of the tactical tricks that the Clintons learned from their co-dynasts," that suggests that democracy is once again adapting to innovations that undermine it. Could it be that after twenty years the electorate is adaping to negative advertising and Rovian fear-mongering?

The black turnout and the overwhelming black vote for Obama, more than anything so far does identify Obama as the black candidate. That fact might make race a bigger issue in the remaining primary states. When Obama got almost 9 out of 10 black votes that conclusion becomes inescapable. I still don't see where Obama demonstrates a real capacity for the job. That's why I am annoyed that he had the audacity to run at this time. I look at the endorsements he has gotten and I can only think that some of these people have lost their collective minds. If the GOP puts McCain out as their nominee, I might feel obligated to vote for him because I really believe that Obama is not ready to face the challenges of the office in these perilous times.

"You think the Bush family created BJ Clixon?"

Yeah -- the future Bush 41 taught it to the Clintons back in Arkansas in the early 80s, when Reagan hadn't even been re-elected yet.

Hey, there HAD to be some way it wasn't his side's fault. That's how Clinton disease works. Even in an article purporting to take Clinton down, it's STILL not his fault. It's those damn Republicans. Even before they were on the scene.

That's why when Clintonites talk, we laugh.

I live in Spain and it seems obvious from here that, as much as we like the Democrat candidates as an alternative to the current administration, nobody can win the general election without winning big Southern states like Florida, Texas, Georgia etc. It looks to me like Obama and Hillary could not win the red states in the middle and south, and the map will look like 2000 again. Don't you think that the only way a Democrat can win is if he/she is from the South? Kennedy picked LBJ for this reason but 1960 was a special time...I don't think it can be repeated.

media... commenter,

It appears that you have some problems with your math and your reasoning and beg the question.

So, I will try to help you out a little (have earned my master's degree in mathematics; starting my doctorate- so I still have a ways to go, but it's sufficient to address this).

So, you decided to selectively pick this state's (SC) vote to decide how much of the Caucasian vote Barack will get elsewhere. That is called a sample of one. In logic, that is called hasty generalization.

We could have looked at a number of other states (ie. Iowa where he won by almost double digits in a state which has a democratic caucus which is 96.5 percent white) or NH which is similarly not diverse (and yet was quite competitive and hurt by Hillary's tears).

We will forget that Hillary is a well known candidate and Barack is not as well known nationally. We will forget the results when the media disect why Billary lost so badly (ie not by single digits). We will ignore the fact that she is the female candidate and 61 percent of the voters were female.

Let us just use arbitrary (special pleading anyone) choice and apply it blanketly.

Billary still loses. You said that he would get killed on Feb 5.

We'll practice our multiplication and addition so that we can get that up to speed:

Hillary won the white women vote by 42 percent to 22 percent over Barack in SC.
She won the white male vote by 28 percent to 27 percent over Barack. (BTW I guess you missed that Bill Schneider on CNN pointed out that Edwards white male votes would not necessarily go to Hillary since they already knew about her and didn't choose to vote for her; rather, they are likely to be anti-Hillary votes).
Barack slaughtered her among African Americans by about 81 percent to 17 percent.

Can you see what is coming next. So, we need to find out how big each of the above demographic groups is generally speaking in the democratic primary states which are coming up.

So, we will estimate that white women compose 40 percent of the upcoming democratic primaries, white men 40 percent of the upcoming democratic primaries and African Americans only compose 20 percent of the democratic primaries (California, NY (e.g. Harlem), Georgia (Atlanta)- no special pleading here that she will do better among African Americans in these states - very likely not true given Billary's race baiting).

Hillary 42 times .40 = 16.8
Barack 22 times .40 = 8.8

That is the white women's vote (her specialty is the uneducated white women - interesting demographic base to have as your primary constituency). She wins by 8.

Hillary 28 times .40 = 11.2
Barack 27 times .40 = 10.8

She won the white male vote too! (by all of .4).

So far, then, she is ahead by 8.4.

But, we're not yet done.

Hillary 17 times .20 = 3.4
Barack 81 times .20 = 16.8.

So, now, we add them up:
Hillary = 16.8 + 11.2 + 3.4 = 31.4.
Barack = 8.8 + 10.8 + 16.8 = 36.4

Even with your unwarranted assumptions, she still loses by 5.

A movement has started which is only growing stronger. The momentum is palpable.

This systematic attempt to engage in race-baiting and nasty divisive campaigning has alienated exactly the people she would need to win in November. No wonder she has such high unfavorables. Undecideds will not be breaking her way. They already know her and still don't want to vote for her. She can't win.

Yes, it was racist to marginalize the accomplishments of MLK and to say that it is the help of our powerful white friends that we got to where we are today in Civil Rights.

Yes, it was racist to attempt to marginalize Barack to the limited scope of a Jesse Jackson 1984 and 1988 campaign (he didn't win any predominantly Caucasian states).

The experimental use of a drug almost 30 years ago which was already acknowledged was brought up repeatedly by her surrogates with her knowledge intentionally (e.g. Mark Penn, BET President, Bill Shaheen)was an implied racial slur.

She had the support of the democratic establishment and as the inevitable and invincible candidate where would the prominent democrats go for an alternative. Senators like Patrick Leahy, Edward Kennedy, Claire McCaskill and John Kerry left her because of this divisive, hateful campaign strategy. BTW, Kerry got more votes than Bill Clinton; Bill Clinton never won a majority of the vote (only pluralities).

While this primary has a ways to go, it appears based upon trends and responses that Barack is the favorite to win the nomination.

Clintons: Live by the race card, and now die by the race card.

I hope the article is right. I know that Hillary is the only democrat who can lose the general election and the only democrat I will never vote for (and I have voted for the democratic candidate in every election since 1972). Because of Bill Clinton, the country was left so morally adrift, a man like Bush got elected. Bill Clinton's legacy will be much different in 10-20 years that most democrats think it is today. The Clintons are only showing who they are and I am astonished that anyone is surprised about what they will do to win. They will sell out the party and the country to get elected.

I'm tired of being told that my "group" will support Hillary. The constant claims that race or gender will decide this matter are insulting. While every rule has exceptions, most Americans will vote for the candidate they truly believe will be the best for the future of the nation. We have real problems facing us, affecting our lives, and we are not so easily fooled into tossing away our precious vote so tritely. For myself, I'm tired of degenerate politics and the Clinton machine behavior of recent days repulses me. Dirty stabs, showmanship, phony smiles, all of it, stale, dated, and passe. It does not pass the smell test. There is a new day dawning and SC rejected politics as usual. I hope the rest of the nation is as astute.

I seem to remember a gentleman from Texas who complained about the bickering in Washington. Claimed he was an outsider and was successful in reaching across the aisle. Look what we got. Talk is cheap. Actions, real accomplishments over time is the true test. Obama is my second choice in the Democratic party. Great orator but lacking experience and experience is absolutely necessary along with a keen intelligence which both Hillary and Obama as well as Edwards have. South Carolina's vote was a reflection, understandably, of their significant African American population in the Democratic party. We will have to see what happens in other states.

As a libertarian and Paul supporter, I've got no horse in this one. What is obvious, though, is that Obama and Clinton would have essentially the same policy positions and would, with a Democratic Congress, have equal success with the liberal policy agenda.

So it comes down to who has the intangible qualities needed to be president. On this, Obama is clearly the better candidate. To keep people in line while exercising power, you not only need, in private, to divide enemies and even keep your friends a little scared, you also need, in public, grace, dignity and a tempered attitude. The Clintons (and yes, we'd be electing a two-headed president) might have the private skills, but their public skills are clearly lacking. Their ambition has always been grossly on display, as has their calculation. In other words, they're not even very good politicians. I'm amazed that Democrats could ever be so enamored of them, especially when the party has so much political talent elsewhere, and especially when a Democratic president wouldn't need too many back-stabbing skills to sign the Democrat legislation that will be put on his desk.

Wake up, Democrats. The world is chock full of talent.

On Monday, the sound you hear may be the hammering of the last nail in Hillary's coffin as Ted Kennedy endorses Obama. It looks as if that will release a flood of new endorsements in the Senate.

If I were HRC, I wouldn't put Florida in the bank just yet. Her sudden decision to actually campaign in Florida indicates that something unpleasant for HRC may be going on.

Floridians and the voters in Super Tuesday states had as much access to their TV's Staurday as people in SC.

This could be nearly over sooner than we thought possible. But then again ....

It amazes me how even an article solely about the democrats can somehow still manage to blame the Bushes for the Clinton"s completely inappropriate behavior. Remarkable Klein, remarkable!

What I see in the results of the South Carolina is just about what I expected. Obama"s win is still a win and he should be congratulated for it. But what does it say about racial bias when roughly 80% of the Black vote went to Obama. The White vote on the other hand was much more evenly divided. While I can not fault Black people for wanting to see a Black candidate win it has to be obvious that his overwhelmingly majority of the Black vote was based on race.
I am watching the talking heads on TV saying that the Clintons negative campaigning swung the vote to Obama. Ok if this is the case then why did Hillary get more votes than Edwards? He was born in South Carolina and certainly should have beat Hillary there.
The nomination process now moves out of the red states and the Obama supporters will not see these kind of results again. He will probably win some states but Hillary will prevail. Red states will not decide who represents the Democratic party in November.

I agree with much of what you say, but if Hillary wins the nomination you will go on and support her brand of trashiness like a good foot soldier. So this is all BS and pablum.

What we have here is not the Clintons playing the so-called race card, it is the media frothing at the mouth to bury the Clintons. I watched a couple of hours of pundits analyzing the election for us on both MSNBC and CNN and the only person that had one decent remark to make about Hillary was Pat Buchanan. I mean this is like a lynch mob mentality exactly like they did after Iowa. We now have a major race factor embroiling the election process stirred by the same ignorant media that jumped on Bush’s war in Iraq bandwagon and must bear a large amount of blame for the plight we are in. But then they did get to be embedded with the military which was great TV footage. To attempt to paint the Clintons as playing the race card is totally stupid. Hillary did not diminish MLK, but was only pointing out that without a supportive President he would not have succeed which is true. Everything that they said was nit-picked by the media and nothing that Obama said drew any criticism. Obama admitted to using cocaine but it makes you a racist to mention it. He was involved with Rezko but it is racist to mention it. What will the swift boaters do with this crap? He says that the Republican Party is the party of ideas but now says that he did not say they were good ideas. Well he did not say they were bad ideas either so why would he mention it at all? Does the media question just what the hell does he mean, of course not. Joseph Stalin changed the trajectory of Russia so if he would have brought that up would he still get a pass? I think so because we do not want to be racist.

There are a lot of people that will buy into anything if it fits their own opinion but it is a long way until November and Hillary will be the Democratic nominee. It is sad that the black supporters that have loved the Clintons for so long bailed on her for a slick talking black dude who has done nothing for them. It will create a white backlash that will have white supremists supporting Hillary for Christs sake. South Carolina just really mucked up the nominating process but then what would you expect from the south?

bccitywhycare73,

How to smear: Make everything plausible. Make everything deniable.

How to discover smear: Count the deniables.

It seems like a real mistake to me to think that Obama won as a result of the huge black turnout or because more than half of South Carolina voters were black. The crucial factor in his victory was his ability to capture a decisive majority of black voters--rather than just winning a plurality of black voters. Do you see what I'm saying? In a three-way race somebody MUST always win a plurality of a given group of voters!

The total number of black voters wasn't nearly as important as how decisively those black voters were distributed between Obama and the other candidates.

Let's imagine half as many black voters show up to vote on Saturday as actually did, but that exactly the same amount of non-blacks show up and vote. I think Obama STILL would have won.

Let me know if the following assessment is in some way wrong.

Even if the numbers aren't exact, is this about right:

55% of voters in South Carolina were black and Obama got about 80% of their support, HRC got 18%, Edwards 2%.

45% of voters in South Carolina were non-blacks and Obama got 24% of their support, HRC got 36%, Edwards 40%.

The total number of votes was something close to 530,000--290,000 cast by blacks and 240,000 by non-blacks.

So in our hypothetical that would change to:
145,00 votes cast by blacks and still 240,000 by non-blacks. Assuming the same percentage of both black and non-blacks are distributed to the candidates, here's what would seemingly happen: (remember this is if half as many black voters went to the polls!)

Blacks
BHO 116,000 (80%)
HRC 23,200 (18%)
JRE 2,900 ( 2%)
Non-blacks
BHO 57,600 (24%)
HRC 86,400 (36%)
JRE 96,000 (40%)
Total
BHO 173,600
HRC 109,600
JRE 98,900

Does all of this make sense? With black turnout cut in half!! I think that's astounding...

Am I missing something?

What happened to the Clintons is like how some adoptions turn out. The adopted has happy life everything is going well and than the biological parent decides to show up. Those who adopted and gave everything are no longer relevant; there is confusion, dislike, abandonment, hurt on both sides. Those who adopted and gave everything will eventually be vindicated!

I think Super Tuesday is going to be very interesting. Every Democrat and every independent I've spoken to in California (and it's a lot of people) say they will vote. People are paying attention. They are watching debates, listening to speeches, keeping abreast of the news. If you think the turnout was impressive in South Carolina, just wait until February 5th. If change is the message, the fact that so many more people are voting is a big sign that change is happening. The disaster of the Bush years is pushing people to act. And, I for one, think it is a good thing.

It's amazing to read the Clinton supporters deny (or choose to ignore) the tactics of Bill and Hillary. I don't think (and neither did Obama, by the way, as per his 'no comment' response) that Hillary implied anything negative regarding her MLK/LBJ comments, but in her 'clarification', she decided to blame the Obama's campaign for misinterpreting comments she made, and away it went, awaking all that latent racism we see even on this message board. I see the same arguments brought out against Obama - "Rezko" - "Cocaine".. all issues he has raised himself, and as he said, is happy to discuss. He's just frustrated, like most adults in this country, with the *spin* that people put on these stories, and the attempt to divert attention from issues toward sensationalism, drama, and now of course, race. The media plays a part to be sure, but there’s a sad sheep mentality that listens to the sound bites and believes the hyped up nonsense. The Clintons know this, and they play it to the max. By their own admission, they “love this stuff”.

If Obama was “Clinton-inclined”, he’d be asking the same questions of the Clintons as the Republicans will be:
Who perjured? Who ordered tax audits of all the women that Bill (well, the ones we know about) slept with?
Who lied about where they were on 9/11? (Claimed she pulled Chelsea into a store upon hearing an explosion, when Chelsea later admitted she was home in bed)
Who claims they were named after Sir Edmund Hillary, even though she was born six years *after* he climbed Everest and was unknown beforehand? Whitewater anyone?

And these are the easy, cheap shots. Dig a little online, and there’s far more ‘speculative’ rumors about far more sinister activities. If you’re a fear-monger, and scared of big bad Republican swift-boating spin machine, then surely you should be losing sleep over the Clintons more than Obama. It's almost frustrating at times that Obama isn't unleashing hell on the Clintons on their past deceptions, but that is what separates him from the others, and gives the rest of us tired old cynics hope, that if he can smack enough people (yes, with words, more effective in this case) into realizing that they (US) are in control of our destiny, and are not a mercy of any media analyst (no offense, Joe), pundit or dramatization.

As Obama has said - nobody expects him to avoid legitimately tough questions about his policies, background, decisions and direction, and receive criticism from people who disagree with him. (To borrow a quote from the man “… so we can disagree, without being disagreeable”. ) This whole "We can't level criticism at him or be branded racist" garbage is tiresome, and more evidence of latent racism I mention above. It’s not racist to ask questions of him, I have a few. It’s not even racist to say “slick talking black dude” (bccitywhycare73), although it’s far from constructive, like calling Hillary a “cackling old windbag”. If those types of labels are how you choose your vote, reap what you sow… It takes very little effort nowadays to search online, find out how people voted, and what they stand for. A bit more effort to wade through the garbage, for sure, but at the end, you may actually find someone who agrees with you on how to further this country, rather than using labels applied by somebody else.

Those who choose to fear, continue on. You may already be “Older and wiser”, and as such be stuck in your ways; I have no wish to disturb the peaceful slumber of your awareness or raise from hibernation any inclination in you to change. The rest of us may hope (foolishly) to believe in a system that can elect someone based on their ability to inspire, connect, and drive people, versus who can throw mud the best, or on their “35 years of change” (cough)….

Klein has been an unabashed participant in the Clinton hate fest that has gone on since the Iowa caucuses. Hillary's ultimate nomination as the Democratic candidate and election as the next U.S. president will serve to repudiate him and all his broadcase media colleagues who fell in love with George W. Bush during his run for high office. You are the old guard whose reputations are on the line after having subjected us to the disastrous last eight years. To set the record straight, Hillary legitimately contrasted King and LBJ in an effort to highlight the importance of pragmatic policy making in addition to flowery oratory, notably Obama's strong suit. In taking offense and spinning it as something racial, the Obama camp pursued a strategy useful in the short term (South Carolina) that at the same time undermined his national candidacy. He will be president one day, with the assistance of the Clintons, not the right wing pundits who sing his praises now, but would no doubt highlight all his weakenesses and flaws in the general election.

darrens,--- “bccitywhycare73, How to smear: Make everything plausible. Make everything deniable.
How to discover smear: Count the deniables“ ---- How to support an argument without any substance, spin. ----

Lycurgus , --- “Am I missing something?” --- No I do not think you are missing anything and I find your hypothetical interesting but it does not negate my opinion that Obama’s win was based on a racial preference and not the merits of the candidates. When I say this it is not meant to demean Obama’s qualifications in any way. We will see in a little over a week when over twenty states cast their ballots. I live in Nevada and can tell you that the culinary union did intimidate it’s members to vote for Obama yet when Bill brought it up he was accused of using smear tactics. It is like the press automatically accepts whatever the Obama campaign says as fact and the Clintons as lying. I do not want the press to have so much influence on our elections because they lack any semblance of fairness or objectivity. I never thought I would see the day when Pat Buchanan was the only person on TV who was sticking up for a Clinton. It is quite fascinating to watch the dynamics of this campaign play out.----

PoliticalGirl+ --- “Bill and Hillary Clinton need to find a different occupation. They don't need to be involved in politics“ --- actually politics is their whole life. If you read Hillary‘s bio on Wikipedia, you will find that she was canvassing during the Nixon campaign at the age of 13. --- “Bill had his chance to run and blew it for being a man-whore.” --- As are the vast majority of the male species. Men are not a very admirable representative of the human species. Their main function in life is to screw as many Women as possible and kill as many men that they can legally get away with as history has so vividly recorded. The insecurity of men concerning their manhood is displayed by their lust for war. They want to get into combat to prove their courage and virility, and it is not until they see the blood running that the sudden realization sinks into their under developed brains that it could be their blood. I am sorry to say that I was one of these poor creatures that went through this life changing experience but did not understand the dynamics of my behavior until decades later as I aged. I still feel the subconscious urges surface when I see or read of the exploits of our Marines in battle. I still see the dead faces of my friends with mangled bodies lying in the trenches of Korea. --- Sorry, I did not mean to drift off topic but do not judge Bill too harshly because I have seen him talk up close and he has a charismatic persona and a very powerful effect on Women. Were I to have been so fortunate…Hillary Clinton Wikipedia, --- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hillary_clinton
.

Rap4,

First of all, you and Joe Klein are wrong about saying that Bill Clinton was race-baiting when he mentioned that Jesse Jackson won SC in 84 and 88. Jesse Jackson won 11 primaries and caucuses in 1988. Some of the states and territories that he won were VT, VA, DE, PR and MI--hardly "black states". Not to mention, Jackson was the only Democrat in the last three decades to win SC, and multiple other primaries and caucuses, without winning the Democratic nomination. Bill Clinton was just trying to diminish Hillary's opponent's win--he wasn't trying to race-bait. If Obama had won NH, Bill Clinton would have said that Paul Tsongas won NH, as well as multiple other primaries, but didn't get the nomination. However, Bill Clinton couldn't mention Tsongas, in order to diminish Obama's SC win, because Tsongas didn't win SC.

As far as the MLK comment goes, Hillary wasn't at all trying to diminish MLK's legacy. Obama had compared himself to JFK and MLK--implying that he was a "vision" candidate. Hillary was just simply pointing out that LBJ was the one who actually pushed the civil rights legislation through Congress, because he was an expert at manipulating the levers of power in Washington--consistent with the "experience" argument she is making. If Obama and his campaign had been smart, they would have said "Well yeah, but LBJ also got us into an intractable war"--instead of playing the race card.

By the way, it is not racist to point out Obama's past drug use--heck, he wrote about it in a book. Was it racist to point out that Bill Clinton "didn't inhale" when he ran for president in 19992? Was it racist to point out George W Bush's rumored past drug use when he ran for president in 2000? This is ridiculous!! Oh, and on a side note, pointing out inconsistencies in Obama's Iraq war record (i.e.-"Fairy tale") is not racist. It seems like any attack on this guy is now "racist".

In conclusion, I like and respect Bill Clinton. I don't appreciate the media, Obama, and his supporters calling him or Hillary "racists" based on bogus claims--like when Jesse Jackson jr. said that Hillary didn't cry for the poor victims of Hurrican Katrina. Not to mention, I really don't appreciate the media making repeated sexist comments about Hillary Clinton. Chris Matthews has called her "Nurse Ratched", said she was "witchy", and has said that "She's like fingernails on a blackboard and would repel male voters". Christopher Hitchens has called her "an aging and resentful female." Andrew Sullivan has said that she has "cooties" and has referred to her as "vicious." Oh, and who can forget Matt Drudge putting up an extremely unflattering picture of Hillary on his website with the caption reading, "Campaign taking it's toll". Why doesn't the media just came out and call her "A postmenopausal, dried-up old hag"--because we all know that's what they really mean.

At the beginning of this election cycle, I liked both Obama and Hillary--in other words, I was undecided. Now, after months of sexist coverage of Hillary Clinton, and after weeks of the media, and Obama supporters, calling the former President and First Lady racists, I have reached the boiling point.

I am voting for Hillary, not because Obama is black. I am voting for Hillary, because I think that she runs circles around Obama in the debates, because she is substantially more experienced, she seems to me to have a better understanding of the issues, especially health care (even though Joe Klein seems to foolishly think that "hope" is more important than actual positions and specifics), and she has worked across the aisle on concrete issues, such as SCHIP and health care for National Guard members. Not to mention, Barack's "big change" in Washington was to pass a bill that states that it's OK for lobbyist to buy members of Congress food, as long as they eat it standing up. Also, I'm not too thrilled with Obama's voting "present" 137 times in the state legislature, as well as ducking the Iran vote. You can't vote "present" if you're the president.

Race and gender have nothing to do with my vote. However, the media's ridiculous and sexist coverage of Hillary Clinton for the last few months, coupled with media's, as well as Obama's supporters, calling President Clinton a "racist" for the last few weeks has had the unintended consequence of completely solidifying my support for Hillary Clinton.

Susannah, An excellent post in fact at times reading it I almost thought that I had written passages of it. The media has been brutal on Hillary and even if I were a Republican it would turn me into a Clinton supporter.

The really humorous part is that the media that are so wrapped up in their selves may turn out to be Hillary’s best friend as people react in disgust at their obvious blind dislike for the Clintons. Chris Matthews may well have won New Hampshire for her with his uncontrolled blather. Thanks Chris.

Make no mistake: What happened last night in Florida is a hell of an answer to your article:
"S.C. REJECTS CLINTON TRICKS" . It's been said that Obama is running against two Clintons, but almost 900,000 of floridians know that Hillary is running against Obama + Edwards + most of the press. It's an excellent strategy from the anti-Clinton and the Republican side: Let's get Obama in the ballot and it will be easy to beat Him up.
Sorry! won't be that way.

VERY CLEVER, I DID NOT FIND MY COMMENTS AND DECIDED TO ASK WHY?
SUDDENLY: MY OPINION APPEARS WHEN I START THIS 2ND. ANYWAYS: NOW WE KNOW WHOM YOU ARE TRYING TO STOP, BUT TIMES ARE HARD FOR ALL OF YOU, HILLARY, STILL, IS THE FRONT RUNNER AND THE RESULTS FROM THE SUPER TUESDAY SHOW YOU HOW THE FACTS HIT PAINFULY YOUR DREAMS.

M4V Converter free download center- ALL M4V conversion tools which help you feel free to convert M4V to MP3, AVI, WMV, MPEG, FLV, 3GP, WMA. And useful Guide on How to Deal with M4V files.
m4v converter
convert m4v
Ultra Quicktime M4V converter currently is the best M4V converter which can convert Quicktime movie M4V to AVI, MPEG, MP4, MPG, WMV, ASF and Vob. As we know Quicktime movie usually has the video formats of M4V, MOV, QT, MP4, and M4V, With this M4V Converter, you can feel free to Convert them all with fast speed and high output quality.
m4v to avi
m4v to wmv
With the fast and powerful QuickTime video decoder inside, Ultra QuickTime M4V Converter supports almost all MOV, QT, MP4, M4V files, even QuickTime Player has not been installed. Integrated High-speed MPEG-2 encoder which let you convert M4V to DVD-Video files(VIDEO_TS, AUDIO_TS) and VCD/SVCD image(*.bin,*.cue), so you can burn VCD/SVCD/DVD disc easily from QuickTime files by using third-party buring tools. It is a software program for converting video formats at fast speeds and high quality. Very user-friendly interface and Quality Profiles.
m4v to mpeg
m4v to mp4