The South Carolina primary is wrapping up and it appears that Barack Obama has scored a pretty convincing win over Hillary Clinton and John Edwards. Estimated score? Obama 57%, Clinton 29%, Edwards 13%. The win ended a week in which Obama and Clinton were feuding rather openly, and in which Bill Clinton was ruffling many feathers with his attack dog act on his wife's behalf.
But the main question, in my view, is "what next?" South Carolina's turnout was about half African-American. About all we have learned from this Obama win is that the talk of Bill Clinton being the first Black president (and some of the glory rubbing off on his wife?) can be trumped pretty well by an actual black candidate who would actually stand to become the first black president.
On to Super Tuesday. Do the voters stand to punish Clinton for signing up her husband as enforcer? Or do they stand to pick on Obama for his preceived lack of experience? Your guess is as good as mine. My prediction is more excitement. Details? Well, I think that Edwards now has no chance, and wonder when he will face it. I also expect Giuliani to soon give up the ghost. I think that McCain is the one to beat on the Republican side, and hope that Romney will soon be seen by all (instead of just many) as a hopeless opportunist.
Ultimately, the primary campaigns are too important to be enjoyable- excitement is something to fight against. The possibility of fatal error- nominating weaker candidates- is too frightening.
recommend
Facebook
Twitter
bookmark 
print
Comments: 26
What next? With this campaign the only thing to do is to wait and see. I was hoping for some positive specific changes, but maybe will just have to be content that it looks like whatever happens on either side will be an improvement to what we have now, maybe that is the best we can do, spend the next 4 years trying to clean up the mess.
Is this a case of race trumping gender or does it suggest that black and women voters are no longer "owned" by the Clintons.
On to Florida, and Super Tuesday after that......
Obama is running such a strong campaign that if he doesn't win now, he will probably be our President later, if the country doesn't implode due to corruption.
When the general public finds out what Mormons believe about women, minorities, and gays, Romney will be dropped like a hot potato.
My thought is that the Obama campaign needs to come up with a good retort to the Clinton attacks. Something akin to Reagan's "Well, there you go again" that will disarm and minimize anything that the Clintons bring up. Of course, he still has a ways to go to convince many that he has the experience and demeanor and judgment to be President.
My thought for the Clinton campaign is to be careful about becoming too much the establishment candidate. This clearly is a "change" election, and while superior organization may trump uncertain promises, sometimes being too cozy with "bums" that the public wants to throw out can be a bad thing. She has a great deal to offer, which she can emphasize without trying to tear down her opponents.
Guiliani has shown faulty campaign strategy, which brings into question his ability to run the entire country if he cannot even manage a campaign adeptly.
Romney is probably the best candidate against the Democrats, though he may not be able to get the nomination. He is a manager, which the country sorely needs. He would be less ideological, which we also need. And he best represents the "change" atmosphere of this election. But he may not make it that far because the opportunist label has started to stick.
That's an interesting statement. In my life I have seen lots of
change candidates win the nomination, McGovern was the
big one at the time of Viet Nam.
They get trounced bigtime when the real election happens
because (I think) during the campaign lots of talk happens to
appeal to voters who are not necessarily vested in the system
and do not really care that much ... like the pull of a slot-
machine, they pull the handle for change, and when it doesn't
happen the lose steam.
I see a lot of this in many, not all, Obama supporters. Many
of them say they will only vote for Obama. If Obama is not
the candidate they will not vote. People who think like this
are dangerous. The way we got 4 more years of George
Bush was because most Republicans voters do not do this,
they are more politically pragmatic and consistant.
It would be a tragic shame if just to make show of their
frustration that a candidate who cannot win would get
the nomination.
The invocation of the Dole campaign is an interesting
one. Dole was a lot more bland than McCain, and
McCain has some liabilities, but how the "security"
aspect of how this election breaks down will be a
big one.
I don't think it is a matter of 'facing' anything, for Edwards or Kucinich. They are good men, who care more about their country than they do about winning. The difference they make remains, even if they don't win the nomination.
Actually, I think they said many times tht it was "All the Women" that made the difference in NH.
> won in New Hampshire, all the whites came
> out to vote for her."
No, of course not, because Obama would not
even be in the race if there were not significant
white people who voted for him.
Apparently you do not understand the meaning
of this, it is that more black people break their
voting decisions down on racial lines than white
people. That is sort of good news, and it is really
not a big issue, why do people seem to want
to goad the discussion into some kind of argument
about this?
I am not saying that Obama is another Lincoln. He is intellectually promising, but younger than Lincoln was by ten years. We also lack the kind of challenge, like the Civil War, that brings out the best and worst of us immediately. Our current crises, such as climate change and the worsening position of our economy on the world stage, are of the "death by degrees" variety that many of us prefer to duck. In this regard, whoever becomes our next president will have to not only define our challenges but also motivate us to meet them- more than Lincoln had to do, since the war was started by the south and the Union had either to respond or accept- an easy choice.
for Abe Lincoln. He ran a business, and at the time life itself was much
different.
Abe was 56 when he died. He was 23 when he first tried to go into
politics. He was 52 when he was elected President.
If we change the concept of experience to one of life achievements
Abe tops most human beings who have ever lived. When Abe was
in the Senate he made speeches of worldwide import, and that led
him to stand out.
The Lincoln-Douglas debates being the case in point.
He was an outright activist on the issues of the day, he did
not ask people to follow him because of his voting record,
he was a born exceptional leader. Imagine how far Abe
Lincoln would have gotten if he had only voted the right
way on salvery instead of been a leader on the edge willing
to putting his career and life on the line?
When you bring up Abe Lincoln and Barack Obama you imply
comparisons that most people including Obama fall far short
of and fail to live up to, but you do it for a point and I think
your point is invalid Chris.
I do not think Obama can be taken seriously yet by someone
who is a serious student of politics, or a follower of the current
election cycle. He is gathering support by saying the right things
in the right way, that without deeds to back him up do not
impress me, even when you consider the mediocrity of the other
candidates. He is asking people to take a gamble on him, and
that means we have to look at the probabilities.
To me the largest unknown, the biggest gamble, will be that
there is not something, some dirty trick, that the Republicans
can use at a point that is too late to respond to that will
throw the election. In 2004 this was actually accomplished
by a Democrat, the Mayor of San Francisco who right before
the election started allowing gays to marry in SF, thus ensuring
the mobilization of the Christian right and their turnout to
vote.
This is how close this election is going to be ... and I feel strongly
that it is all of our jobs, Democrat or Republicans to think really
carefully about it, and strategically. We already threw away
the most experienced and accomplished Democrats, Biden and
Dodd like they were old socks. Democrats had better start thinking
and start listening to the arguments.
One minor quibble- Abe never served in the U.S. Senate. He did serve one term in Congress, but he actually lost in his fight against Stephen Douglas for a Senate seat. An example of losing the battle but winning the war- later on, when Lincoln became president and Stephen Douglas did not.