They won't have to do it much more, they'll just subtly keep the racial undertone going.

In other words, you can't unring a bell. The Clintons have made their bed, they can lie in it.

With a Ted Kennedy endorsement coming down the pike, I don't think we have to worry too much about whether Obama is a closet conservative. And his victory speech from last night had a fair bit of Fight-the-Man red meat that sounded straight out of the Edwards playbook. I'm sending in my absentee (NY) ballot for him on Monday.

Zzzzz. Wake me up when November is here.

I was pleasantly surprised to see Caroline Kennedy's endorsement of Obama in the NYT.

Question:

Has HRC inspired the next generation the way Obama has, the way JFK did?

The race (no pun intended) for president has to become much more than any "ism" (sexism, racism, etc.)

...time for us to judge folks by the content of their character, not the color of their skin!

(tell that to Bill, aka shrill bill)

Contrary to conventional wisdom, I suspect she's also more electable than Obama.

It's also contrary to common sense, polls, empirical evidence, and basic thought.

Hear, hear Kevin. Although you were pretty dismissive regarding turnout in your post, and I disagree with you regarding Hillary's general electability, good for you for getting honestly disturbed by Bill Clinton's rhetoric (especially with that Jesse Jackson jibe...what the fuck was that all about?), as I did.

Just filled out my absentee today in the California primary, and it's going for Barack Obama. Good luck to him.

My primary is a week from Tuesday, and I'm not feeling very disposed to reward this kind of behavior.

So stand for what you believe, and vote against her!

Outrageous post.

"Turnout was up. So what."

So what? So what?? Dude, it almost DOUBLED. Obama alone got more primary votes than No. 1 and No. 2 Republicans, McCain and Huckabee, COMBINED.

In case you forgot, elections are about getting the most people to vote for you. And for every one person Hillary got to vote for her, Obama got more than TWO! The man was a godmotherdamnf*ckin' turnout machine! And he did this running against the greatest Democratic politician that we have know over the past twenty years, and his talented wife.

Helloooo Drum!!! Hellooooo McFly!!!

obamaw will win it all

oops, that should read:

obama will win it all

BTD on Jeralyn Merritt's blog seems to suggest that Gore will endorse Obama.

q

Thank you, Kevin, for your honesty. I know that this isn't an easy call for you. But it is the right thing to say and it has to be said. That is all.

Hey, don't think for a second that things will be forgiven and forgotten in November. I am not voting for the Clintons in the primaries and I am not voting for them in the General.

I would rather focus on congressional elections and wait out another 4 years under Republican rule than put the Clintons back in office, and I voted for Clinton I twice.

Also, it's not like the Democrats really do anything Progressive when they are in power anyway ... please see 2006 elections and resulting policy shifts. (Don't look too hard, they aren't there).

Despite what she says on the campaign trail, Clinton is a lying snake and as soon as she doesn't have to appease the stinkin' hippies anymore, she's going to tack hard to the right. Verifiably, it's what the Clintons do.

So, no dice. If Hillary gets elected, she's going to ignore progressive politics for EIGHT years, because she will be the automatic nominee in 2012. If I vote for a Republican (or not vote) this year, then I will get another bite at the apple in 2012 to put someone in office who isn't a lying snake.

Bye Bye Hillary. You're going to lose. Progressives like me just won't vote for you. Period. Even if the result is a Republican term.

Obama wants a new politics where Democrats and Republicans work together. He wants to work with senators like Mitch McConnell, Gordon Smith, Susan Collins and Jeff Sessions.

Oh, wait. All of these Republican senators are up for re-election. Aren't Democrats supposed to try to defeat Republicans and elect Democrats?

Turnout was up? So what.

Yeah, this can't be good for the party. I mean, who wants people to be excited about Democrats?

Question about the SC primary turnout:

If a person voted in the Republican primary one week ago (say for McCain), can he, or she, vote again in the Democratic primary this week (for Obama)? In other words, can a person switch parties and vote twice?

I mean this in the best possible way, Kevin. But sometimes you sound like my grandpa - nothing's changed, nothing's gonna change ...

What would turnout have to look like to get you excited? And how many of these new voters would have to be young or for Obama?

If you had come up with numbers before the election and then compared them with what we're seeing I'm guessing you'd be doing a better job of holding your opinion accountable to reality.

But I agree it's probably still 55-45 Clinton gets the nomination. Unfortunately

kevin you need more black friends. There are alot of other things people can do on a Tuesday night than go and vote for Hillary Clinton.

Obama gave a great speech after winning in Iowa and another one last night after winning SC, but isn't there more to this than making a geat speech?

I won't get to vote until Apr.22.

As of now I plan on voting for Hillary Clinton, and I will still be listening to Chance the Gardener (Obama) to see what else he comes up with in the meantime.

Emmarose - I read somewhere that the answer is no, you can only vote in one or the other.

I have lived and voted Democratic in Clearwater, Florida for many years. Until last night I was on the fence between Obama and Edwards. Kevin, I want the most Progressive administration we can get come Jan. 2009. After last night's victory speech, I am voting for Obama on Tuesday.

Let us all remember: the FL repub legislature voted to put our primary on Jan. 29 - knowing FULL well that it would not be welcomed by the DNC. I would have preferred to wait.

Man, was that a grumpy post. To think Hillary might be a better candidate; well, I don't think so, but there's an argument to be made there. But to slag turn-out as meaningless -- WTF? Haven't you ever heard of commitment bias? This is, as economists say, a leading indicator. And it's happening again and again so far this election year.

Wake up, Kevin. You're hearing rumblings, but ignoring the possibility of a landslide...for Obama.

Give it up Drum. Hillary is going down. Muhaha.

Turnout was up, so what?

Give me a break. What a pathetically ridiculous observation.

Finally he spits it out. It's not about winning big. That doesn't matter. He's for Billary!!

Yay, South Carolina wrung it out of him!

I can’t find the transcript for it, but Monica Crowley (R), gleefullypredicted on the The McLaughlin Group (PBS) Friday night that Obama was going to get some big endorsements early this week. (I guess she meant the Kennedys.) Eleanor Clift (D) really looked surprised.

My question is why would a right-winger know about this in advance and be so happy about it. Something smells.

Hey Kevin,

What put you in such a sour mood? Why are you so dismissive about everything, even the turnout? This is a heavily Republican state and the Dems outpolled the GOP by 100,000 votes. The GOP suffers from terminal apathy and the only thing that can fire them up is their hatred for Hillary. This is going to be a great year for the Democrats. Enjoy the moment!

I notice all the cynical people line right up with Hillary, and now at least a few of them are grudgingly considering Obama. You don't think Obama will beat McCain? Romney? Come on. He's not progressive? Compare his voting record to both Clinton and Edwards (and stick a fork in Edwards while your at it).

I think natural cynics just don't like a positive message. There's plenty of substance in Obama's policy positions, and they're certainly progressive enough to move this country in the right direction. I really don't want to listen to Hillary for the next four years, nor do I look forward to four more years of extreme partisan divisiveness.

And I agree with others on this board about the turnout. Impressive, and a testament to what Barack can do in the general.

I have serious doubts that Hillary is more electable than Obama. I realize the polling currently suggests that, but I still think there's a disconnect between hearts and minds right now.

Logic seems to point in favor of Hillary being the better candidate because she has the better campaign machine (and a former president in her corner). But there's one really nagging problem: I live in Santa Monica California (what Chris Matthews calls Bill Clinton's 'spiritual homeland'); all of my friends are progressives/Democrats. I do not know a single person out of scores and scores that I have asked - not one - who likes Hillary. Not one. Some dislike her, some even hate her (though no one ever has a compelling reason for the hatred, aside from personality - a vestige, I presume of the GOP slander machine from her attempt to nationalize health care). But they 'think' she's the most electable.

By comparison, a lot of people I know like or even love Obama. They say he's the only truly inspiring voice in the entire field of candidates (both parties). They like his message and they trust him and his judgment far more than a Clinton (does anybody truly trust the Clintons?). But they just don't 'think' Obama can win.

I fear in Hillary we're setting ourselves up for another John Kerry, an emotionless and uninspiring candidate that won the nomination because everyone bought in early to the group think that his nomination was inevitable.

People don't show up to the polls in big numbers for uninspiring, emotionless candidates like Kerry and Hillary. 2004 was lost in no small part because the Republicans were more successful energizing their base (using gay marriage et. al. to make Evangelicals angry enough to show up at the polls for a reason other than George Bush, and then punch his name in as a reluctant after-thought).

Hillary isn't going to inspire a surge in turn-out among young, progressive, and minority voters. Obama will. Just look at South Carolina.

Unlike the 2004 election, we do have an inspiring alternative. Donate to Obama's campaign. Talk to your friends. Read the upcoming endorsements he's getting from Caroline and Ted Kennedy. We deserve better than extending the 28 year Bush/Clinton duarchy on the presidency/vice-presidency into it's fourth decade.

Have to agree with Kit. You sound grumpy,Kevin.

My first take this morning, however, was that your posts after Obama's victory in South Carolina are approaching the worst of your ultra-mentholated, cooler-than-thou, OTOH-OTOH self-parody.

I haven't been impressed with very much of the chatter about Barack Obama's primary victory last night. Hillary didn't give a concession speech? Give me a break. Who cares? Turnout was up? So what.

So what? In this turnout lies the future. Lies change. Lies ... oh forget it. It wouldn't impress you.

Worse, you and the other Clinton dead-enders here continue to insist that the Clintons' divisive and ocndescending politics have been "idiotically mischaracterized."

Mischaracterized? Idiotically? Voters in South Carolina disagree. They know condescension and the politics of division when they see it.

In short, it doesn't much matter what Kevin Drum writes about Obama, or what Joan Walsh says, sniffing dismissively on MSNBC that she just doesn't "see it" (meaning the Clinton slap to MLK/Obama that others saw). You're both starting to sound like Villagers.

"Contrary to conventional wisdom, I suspect she's also more electable than Obama."

I live in northern Nevada, where Obama beat Clinton by more than 10 points. He also beat her handily in most of the rural parts of the state.

I've personally spoken with Independents and Republicans who say they would vote for Obama. I haven't heard the same about Clinton, and you know very well that at most Clinton might pull a couple of Rebuplicans who are older women, and that's about it.

And Obama proved this past week that he can win in a landslide even after having one of the best political teams in America throw everything they have at him. His approach of "a better politics" worked!

If you're going to against conventional wisdom, you're going to have to explain your position a little better.

I dislike many things about the modern Republican Party, but probably first on the list is their willingness to beat up on an underdog and use the racist Southern Strategy to the detriment of African Americans.

As a result, as a 51 year old white man who has witnessed the civil rights struggle practically his entire life, I will have a very hard time voting for Hillary.

I absolutely refuse to vote for a Republican because of their continuing use and endorsement of the Southern Strategy, and I don't think Hillary being the lesser of two evils is sufficient for me to budge on that principle.

Racism is our historical shame, in complete contravention of the principles established in the Declaration of Independence. I won't tolerate it.

O happy day! A transposition allows me to repeat a point. Make that:

Worse, you and the other Clinton dead-enders here continue to insist that the Clintons' divisive and condescending politics have been "idiotically mischaracterized."

Kevin,
One thing I'd love from you this week is some info on what Californians are hearing in the way of campaign commercials, local news reports, etc., in advance of the primary. Also, are there any local ballot issues that will affect the primary?

Kevin, do you have any conservative friends or family? does your experience with them over the last almost two decades not suggest that Hillary is a walking get out the vote machine for the Republicans? Do the turnout numbers not suggest that Obama does the same for Democrats? Do you not get that if more Democrats vote in the general then we win?

I worry sometimes, from the tone and content of your posts, that you see this election as a chance to make the "fever swamp" eat crow for all the bad things they said and did to Bill and Hillary in the 90s. Whatever else, you need to get over that. They survived through a combination of incrementalism, personal charisma, powerful friends, etc. They also survived by embracing the kinds of tactics that you see them using now, & each time they do, you suggest "well, now they're really starting to piss me off, one more thing like that and..."- Well, how many "one more things" do you need?

I understand your ambivalence towards Obama. I'm annoyed by post-partisan posturing too. I Don't want us to all come together, i just want enough of us to come together to kick some Republican butt and signal a mandate for real progressive no, liberal policies. That's why i caucused for Edwards.

Obama's rhetoric does potentially signal a "mandate to compromise" and that's a big misgiving for me. But,I don't see anything in the Clinton history and the campaign that suggests that they (and surely we seem to be electing a "they" if the campaign is any indication)would, this time, pursue a progressive agenda anywhere that it risked conflict with personal power. I'm a native Arkansan, 42 yrs old, so i've had the Clintons on my personal political radar for a long time, and whatever misgivings i have about Obama's agenda, I have them for Clinton's continued adherence to the agenda she's espousing now. So that's a wash for me, and it seems like it should be for anyone who really remembers the 90s.

Whatever these doubts about Obama, there's certainly some commanding reasons to vote for him: he seems to be a talented legislator, he saw the Iraq war as a 'dumb war" from the start, he's able to successfully appeal to a broad and wide swath of the elctorate, and as you've repaetedly stated, the actual policy daylight between him and Hillary is miniscule. This positions him, in my mind, to be an unusually effective President pursuing unusually good policies. While Hillary may have more experience near the large levers of power in American life, she doesn't actually have as much experience in electoral office as Obama, and i think that makes a largely unheralded difference too.

If you really don't want to reward "dog whistle politics" or voter suppression lawsuits (see Nevada)or tortured interpretations of what it means to "campaign or participate in" a given state's primary (see the Michigan and florida delegate grabs)then i'd argue that you have good odds to roll the dice with Obama, at least as good as the odds that the Clintons won't repeat their tendency to tack right as necessary and that they won't catalyze the opposition in ways that only they can.

Or, you know, if you want to vote for a candidate with a real progressive agenda, and for the first seriuous candidate to talk structural class differences in American life in a couple of decades at least, you could vote Edwards.

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 expect Americans to tread, he's already lost the nomination

When this campaign season began, the too-centrist Clinton was the last candidate I intended to vote for. The race for me was between Edwards, Obama and Richardson, in that order. As the primaries have progressed, I've moved into the Clinton camp. Not because Clinton has changed, but because my distrust of Obama has grown. Clinton didn't win me so much as Obama has totally lost me.

1) On examination, his record, advisors and policies indicate he is actually right of center compared to Clinton.

2) He speaks of unity while exploiting generational, racial and gender divisions, resentments and fears.

3) He speaks of the need for a new kind of politics and building trust in political leaders, one corner of his mouth, but in fact relentlessly relies on the same kind of Republican-type character slurs and personal attacks that have turned so many Americans against politics. (Anyone who makes a generalized, unsupported statement like "she will do and say anything to get elected" a major talking point of his campaign is, actually, someone who will do or say anything to get elected. That he uses such a tactic against a member of his own party, is unforgiveable.)

3) He has demonstrated, in his record and in this campaign, no more than the usual lip service commitment to important, too long ignored issues -- of economic justice, family security, the welfare of children and the elderly -- that are important to me and many other women in the Democratic party, and that, for demographic and generational reasons, and because of changes in the structure of our economy, are becoming more important as time goes on.

If he wins the nomination it will be as a divider, not a uniter, in terms of the Democratic party. It will be, like McGovern's nomination, another instance of the party's elite, disdainful of the constituencies that provide the party's strength (in '72 it was labor, in 2008, women) following an elitist, unrealistic "transformational" vision while blinding itself to the realities that are of most concern to the nation.

Kevin: with all due respect, I completely disagree about the turnout thing. By all accounts, Clinton had pretty much sewed up the SC Dem. regulars. So Obama seems to have gone around them, and created an entire parallel Democratic organization, and one that (for instance) does not pay walking-around money, or rely on similar things to get people to the polls. Best I can tell, he also did this in N. Nevada, in Iowa, and elsewhere.

I think that's sort of amazing.

And, in case anyone asks: I have been following this aspect of it, and I have never gotten any sense that Obama's organization would not be completely available to Democrats in future elections, and a lot of the articles I've read suggest that it will be. The article in the LV Sun on which I'm basing what I say about N. Nevada, for instance, says that Obama pretty much reinvigorated the Dem. party in places where it had been absolutely moribund.

I was coming here to comment on Kevin's extremely cynical statement, then I saw lampwick said it much more colorfully than I would have at 2:12.

So let me just repeat:

"In case you forgot, elections are about getting the most people to vote for you. And for every one person Hillary got to vote for her, Obama got more than TWO! The man was a godmotherdamnf*ckin' turnout machine! And he did this running against the greatest Democratic politician that we have know over the past twenty years, and his talented wife."

Kevin Drum, you are so out of it. You say Hillary is more electable than Obama??? WTF! Only in your geezer mind. If you had kids in their late teens, early twenties you would be not talking such nonsense. The world has left you behind, this time it will be young people determining the outcome of this process, not the baldies and grey-hairs. The under 30's have been waiting for this opportunity for a long time.

"And Obama's continued unwillingness to defend progressive policies on explicitly progressive grounds doesn't endear him to me."

And Clinton has?

The meme that Obama is to the right of Clinton has become a cliche.

There is very little difference in their policies. The difference is that Obama is attracting legions of young folks into the process and the Clintons (after the last couple weeks I think the plural is proper) are further alienating voters.

and just to join in the chorus, i think it's idiotic of you to sneer at the turnout. Really.

and, i think that if you were a Democrat in South Carolin who put in lost of hours working for Hillary, her lack of even a speech might mean a little more to you.

Regarding both, i think if you weren't pre-disposed towards Hillary you'd feel at least a little differently. you're right that they're much smaller than Bill's "Remember y'all, he's black...not that there's anything wrong with that, just sayin' that's why he won..." dog whisltle.

Hey, folks, pull in your horns! Did everyone not understand that this was an anti-Hillary post? How obvious do I have to make it? (BTW, for those who don't know this, I work for a 501(c) and am not allowed to explicitly endorse candidates.)

As for turnout, all I meant was that there was no special story in South Carolina. Turnout has been up everywhere for Democrats, which is great news, but South Carolina was just more of the same story. And it's not necessarily related to Obama, either. It's due to the fact that (a) the Democratic race is pretty exciting, (b) it's likely to matter since the primary winner will probably be our next president, and (c) there's been a ton of money in the campaign.

However, I really didn't mean to downplay the importance of turnout, so I've changed the text of the post slightly to make it less dismissive.

"And Obama's continued unwillingness to defend progressive policies on explicitly progressive grounds doesn't endear him to me."

And Clinton has?

This whole Obama is to the right of Clinton meme, promoted by the Clinton campaign as a talking point, has become a cliche.

I suspect she's also more electable than Obama

1) If she wasn't less electable before (although I think she was) Hillary has just made herself less electable than Obama by pissing off African-Americans. They don't have to show up for whatever crappy meal the Democrats choose to serve them. The "Jesse Jackson" and "black candidate" remarks were way over the line and will not be forgotten.

2) Women voters don't actually want her to have a co-presidency with Bill, and deploying him as her chief spokesman has made it very clear that this is exactly what they're going to get.

3) By depressing the fervently Democratic youth vote (which nominating Hillary will do), we will be fucked for a generation.

4) Not to mention that she is likely to be downballot poison.

5) Given the DLC origins of her key advisors, and the family history of triangulation, she would obviously govern more conservatively than Obama. If his rhetoric isn't hot enough for you, remember this: Reagan drove Democrats nuts by claiming he was in the tradition of FDR andTruman. Made him more palatable to many, didn't turn him into a liberal in the least.

6) The more people see of her alongside Obama the more they choose Obama. This is why she still has a chance--Super Tuesday's less-exposed voters are less likely to switch--a victory for Hillary is a "victory" for front-loading the primaries. And we'll end up with another candidate with Kerry-like charisma.

Except for all that, though, she's no worse for the party than Obama.

I'm with Mary. Obama supporters were saying last night that the Clintons calling him "young and articulate" was racist. So now any criticism of Obama is apparently playing the race card. As Craig Crawford so bravely pointed out, it is absurd to say that the Clintons were saying racist things. The media were the ones who first played the race card to distract us from their pathetic behavior in New Hampshire. They had no problem implying that NH Dems are racist. They then combed through every statement that the Clintons or Hillary's supporters uttered and twisted what they could to seem racist. They even implied that Bob Johnson was racist because he brought up Obama's admitted drug use. In the past a candidates drug use was commonly brought up - Clinton's trying marijuana, Bush's probable use of cocaine - but it is racist to mention that Obama used cocaine, or "blow" as he likes to call it? Last night the pundits and some Obama supporters were saying that the Clintons' saying Obama was young and articulate was disrespectful to him as a black man and using code words. I happen to think that there might be something to Karl Rove saying Obama is lazy, since he could not be bothered to hold even one substantive meeting of the Senate Subcommittee on European Affairs, while the House has held many. But I'd better not say that because it would be called racist.
Obama is no saint. His campaign also fanned the fire by putting out a memo complaining about all the racially incorrect things that had been said about him. He then denied it, but came clean in the debate. Funny how that is not discussed. Guess it would be racist to bring it up.

The media swooned over George Bush in 2000 the way they are now gushing about Obama. They hated Gore and twisted things he said to make him seem like a liar, while ignoring the bald-faced lies that came from Bush. A lot of Dems bought their garbage and voted for Nader. The media are up to their old games again and once again Democrats are being sucked in.

The reason Kevin can't get excited about Obama's trascending of the Black/White division in America is that his cats already did that, a long time ago.

OK. Understand that Kevin can't endorse.

But Kev, you can avoid begging the question.

. . . (a) the Democratic race is pretty exciting, (b) it's likely to matter since the primary winner will probably be our next president, and (c) there's been a ton of money in the campaign.

Why is the race exciting? Why is turnout up? Why are Republicans, Independents, and young people engaged in 2008?

"I looked through all the exit polls last night and concluded that South Carolina just didn't have a lot new to tell us."

Must every primary or caucus have some sort of demographic revelation to make it newsworthy? What about the demographics holding up after the Clinton attack machine went full-bore?

If he wins the nomination it will be as a divider, not a uniter, in terms of the Democratic party. It will be, like McGovern's nomination, another instance of the party's elite, disdainful of the constituencies that provide the party's strength (in '72 it was labor, in 2008, women) following an elitist, unrealistic "transformational" vision

Just who the hell were the "elites" voting in Iowa and South Carolina? C'mon, if you think Hillary or Edwards would make a better president then make the case. I suppose your elite opinion matters more than the unwashed masses voting in the primaries. This "electability" bullshit has never served the Democrats well.

And... does anyone with any awareness of American pop culture whatsoever honestly think that a Hillary Clinton presidency would "unite" this country. Gimme a break.

For the record, I think Hillary could win -- but if her supporters and campaign staffers continue with this sore loser tone, they're shooting themselves in the foot.

After hearing about Obama's South Carolina performance, a friend of mine said "why can't he just wait his turn?" As if Hillary were somehow entitled to first crack. She said she'd vote for McCain in the general if Obama was the nominee.

It's that entitlement posturing that will undo every bit of work she's done during her Senate career to rebuild her image after Rush and the usual gang of foaming-at-the-mouth misogynists built their careers on demonizing her (Bill wasn't nearly the target that Hillary was -- she had the audacity to be an ambitious woman, that really pissed the fat impotent white guys off).

I admit I don't like Hillary, but I hate her critics even more. If she's the Democratic nominee I'll vote for her because of the likelihood that one or more SCOTUS will have to be replaced -- I don't want any Republican making that decision. BUT...I hope that Hillary's supporters are prepared to do the same thing if Obama or Edwards (I know, fat chance) wins the Democratic nomination. That would be even worse than voting for Nader in 2000.

I'm voting for Edwards in the NY primary because I want a brokered convention.

I think it would be good for the party. The Dems are on auto-pilot, they need to be shaken up a bit and decide what their vision for the 21st century is. I guess the Republicans have the same problem, only worse.

Congratulations to Obama and we should all be proud of the turnout in South Carolina.

What BernieO said. The elites have fallen in love with their new black friend and any attacks against him MUST be racist. I'm not buying it. I'm tired of the 'victimization' tactic, and would hope for a Dem candidate who can win without turning into, as Atrios is fond of calling it, a ' whiny-assed titty baby'. Good for Obama for inspiring young voters. Obviously he will win almost all black votes. Now let's move on - is it possible for Dems to cheer on their candidate without having to join in the Kool Kidz destruction of the other?

I'm not buying it. I'm tired of the 'victimization' tactic, and would hope for a Dem candidate who can win without turning into, as Atrios is fond of calling it, a ' whiny-assed titty baby'.

Then Edwards must be your choice?

People need to understand the opportunity that a Barack Obama candidacy has for the Democratic Party. Forget about the candidacies of Bill and Hillary Clinton, and consider what he brings.

The Republican Party has a history of saying that the Democratic Party co-opts the minority vote, and only pays them lip-service. To that end, the Republican Party, in all of its wisdom, has put forth divisive and incendiary candidates that do nothing more than polarize this country further. The point that I am trying to make is that it is the Democratic Party, with the candidacy of Barack Obama, that makes this opportunity possible.

The same goes for women. The Republican Party tries to reign the female base of the Democratic Party is shrill liberals, and says that a woman can be liberated and not liberal. Point taken. But where, oh where, has the Republican Party been when it comes to recognizing female participation on the national level? Do you honestly think that the Republican Party would seriously consider a female candidate for the Presidency? Ever (I'm serious about that one, do you believe it would ever consider a female Presidential candidate in comparison to a male)? There was talk of Condoleeza Rice becoming a female candidate for the Presidency. But when talk comes to walk, none. Same with Colin Powell, whose race in the Republican Presidential primary would be a liability, sad to say.

The Democratic Party is the only party to provide this country with viable candidates for real progress. They have provided the centrist Hillary Clinton (for good or bad), and the centrist Barack Obama (for good or bad). Whatever the outcome of this nomination, the Dems have provided themselves with the moral authority to speak out for greater opportunities for individuals, rather than pay lip-service and never provide the opportunity that could have been offered.

With that said, a Barack Obama candidacy would bring into the Democratic Party independents and former Republicans into the fold, and that would signal either a radical restructuringo in the GOP, or their decay. I mean, it could be a real blow to the future of the GOP, because Obama is centrist enough to attract Republican voters, and Obama provides the future independent base that would make the Democratic Party (and some progressive ideals) viable and the mainstream of body politic for possibly this generation. You have a political realignment in the Democrat's favor, not the Republican's. His candidacy is a generational candidacy, and the Democratic Party should be thanking itself to its end that it has been provided with a future brought by the "winds of history" yet again. To sum it up: the future is the with the Democratic Party, if they want it to be. It's just a matter of whether they want to finally live in that country. Finally.

Bill Clinton's Jesse Jackson comment seems less offensive to me than just deceptive and sad.

Deceptive, because Jesse Jackson wasn't a token candidate, but had a shot at the nomination. He was a fighter, a Howard Dean style Democrat's Democrat and did as much as anyone to pave the way for Obama today. He wasn't a South-Carolina-only vanity candidate.

Sad, because Clinton is so self evidently wrong, too, about the comparison. Obama is different than Jackson. He brings in moderates, conservatives, and the apathetic. Obama's base of support is different and Clinton's characterization is so out of synch with everything we've seen so far.

Victimization card? Anyone who thinks Obama "plays" this card has not listened to a word that HE has said, not his "surrogates". Billary dismisses Obama's win 'cause, you know, them South Carolinians don't know sh** and voted for Jesse Jackson. Have you heard Obama say anything that repulsive?

Wake up Democratic Clintonites. You are voting to have the Himbo back in the White House. If that happens, the only positive will be that Brittany Spears will get off the front page of grocery store tabloids. But then I'll have gag as I see new reports of Bill's exploits......

Gov. Sebelius to endorse Obama on Tuesday, per Marc Ambinder at The Atlantic.

It's hardly surprising that the Beltway media elites are being hyper-critical of Bill and Hillary Clinton. Exactly when, pray tell, have they not been? Pardon me, but Joe Klein and Karen Tumulty hardly have their fingers on the pulse of African American voters--I take their opinions on Clinton and Democrats with a grain of salt, no matter what the subject.

As for Bill or Hillary Clinton being too critical or making racial appeals re Obama--give me a break. This is child's play compared to what the Republican attack machine will launch against Obama if he is the nominee. And I guarantee you that every Beltway pundit who is now kvetching about the Clintons will not utter a word of criticism against the Republicans when it happens. They're much more likely to fawn over their brilliance. See any of their writings on Rove if you doubt me.

I confess to not understanding what the big deal is about. Bill Clinton was fairly clearly saying that the African American vote was responsible for Obama's win. Isn't that true? Isn't that what all the newspapers are saying today? So what's wrong with that?

Psst, Kevin: I think most people have already figured out that Obama is black.

Poor Kevin:what took you so long? Hillary Clinton would be toxic as a national candidate;uniting a dispirited Republican Party and being a horrific drag on down-ballot races.Notice how many Senators and Governors of swing or Red states have endorsed Obama. I personally find HRC's sense of entitlement to the nomination outrageous;the only person I know of entitled to his next job is the Prince of Wales. Anyway, welcome to Clinton Rehab! We are here to help you!

I'm an Obama supporter, and I don't see any problem with it. It's true, and it serves as a plausible explanation. Why is it offensive to compare likes? Because the likes are characteristic? Are we not allowed to make any Geraldine Ferraro comparisons either?

This whole Obama is to the right of Clinton meme, promoted by the Clinton campaign ....Chris Brown at 3:24 PM

More from Krugman:
Barack Obama has unveiled a new line of criticism against Hillary: In speeches he’s started to point to the allegation made in Jeff Gerth and Don Van Natta’s Hillary book that the Clintons secretly formulated a 20-year-plan to deliver the presidency first to Bill, and then to Hillary.....
What does this have to do with Social Security? Like the attempt to scare America into privatizing Social Security, the attempt to turn Whitewater, an inconsequential failed land deal, into a major scandal was one of the seminal stories helping to rally progressives around the idea that American politics has to change. Playing into the false story lines in each case is like a red flag. Is it really possible that Obama and his advisers are this out of touch?

And still more:
...the “party of ideas� line came from Moynihan. The weirdness of Obama’s use of the phrase came in the fact that he applied it to the Republican Party of the “last 10 or 15 years,� and suggested that the party of Tom DeLay and George W. Bush — a party that had nothing much to say except tax cuts good, terrorists bad — was “challenging conventional wisdom�.
It’s the same kind of time displacement, but in reverse, that was involved in placing America’s renewed sense of dynamism and entrepreneurship back in the Reagan years, when it didn’t actually happen until the middle of the Clinton years.
I don’t know what’s going on here; but anyway, the fact that Moynihan used the line a long time ago is not helpful to Obama’s case.....

Everybody just chill. SC happened just like everybody thought it would. Obama won big, AA vote was way up as it was expected to be, on Feb 5th, Hillary pounds him in NY, NJ, PA, MA, CA and more and the talking heads will still keep yammering.

I'll vote for whoever wins the nomination, but for all of the "this is it.." soundbites, everybody needs to get a grip.

As for the Kennedy endorsement, big deal. He's a fat drunken slob who should have done time for manslaughter. The fact that he's the aged figurehead of the party is a disgrace. If he wasn't a Kennedy, he would have done 10 years. He was also caught red-handed cheating at Harvard and got thrown out until daddy Kennedy bought him a reprieve. Forgive me if I never quite bought into the populist man- of -the- people line from him. Just a cynic I guess.

As for Carolyn. I'm sorry her life has been filled with so much tragedy, but her father became the eternal symbol of all things good and hopeful after Dallas. Before that, he got us involved in Vietnam, shit all over himself at the Bay of Pigs, and was keeper of an economy that was mediocre at best. Had he lived, he may very well been a one term president and anyone who's even marginally honest will admit that. The Oliver Stone version that he was going to pull the plug on Viet Nam in a month or two but was killed before he got the chance is nonsense.

The whole Kennedy family beautification mantra held by most Dems is just so laughable.

Let's all take a deep breath and see what happens on February 5th. The Obama love-fest may run into an iceberg.

Frank Rich was right on the money today

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/27/opinion/27rich.html?ex=1202101200&en=c21344d2fec4eda1&ei=5070

welcome kevin, its a nice place to be.

How many primaries have we had before South Carolina?

With all due respect, doesn't seem like enough for everything to be "obvious" and grumpily dismissed in a know-it-all-fashion at this point.

Hillary Clinton has assembled the best campaign that could have possibly been assembled in 1995.

She doesn't seem to realize this.

How anyone can think Hilbot is "more electable" is absolutely beyond me. How can Kevin or anyone else not see that it's not just Hilbot in the campaign - it's The Clintons(tm)!
And if there's anything in the world that can save the GOP, it's the double-dose of metaphysical steroids The Clintons(tm) will give them!

I mean, I feel bad. She's ok. But the baggage is just too heavy, and his behavior lately reminds us just why that baggage exists. These people are death in the general election. And anyone who pulls that "but we have to be tough!" schtick is living in the past.

I watched the Obama interview on ABCs “This Week� this morning and tried to understand Obama’s explanation of his Ronald Reagan admiration statement. I am sorry, but I could not follow his explanations. Would someone here help me understand Obama’s Reagan position. I heard Obama acknowledging that, yes, he hated Reagan’s policies, but then saying that what he admires was Reagan’s ability to reach across party lines. He explained that some Democrats were fooled by Reagan into voting Republican against their self interest. Was Obama suggesting that this is a trickery he aspires to emulate? Was Obama suggesting that he wants to be, or is, the Ronald Reagan of the Democratic Party, that is, a likeable politician who can fool Republicans to vote Democratic against their self interest?
But, if reaching across party lines in Reagan-like fashion is what Obama meant by his Reagan admiration proclamation, is not today’s explanation of what he meant signaling to Republicans that they would be fools – like the Reagan-Democrats were – to become Obama-Republicans and vote for him? And, if so, is not Obama shooting himself in the foot for the general election in giving out such signals to the Republicans during the Democratic primary fight?

So, does Obama see himself as the new Ronald Reagan, or the new JFK? He can’t be both. JFK did not court Republican votes, and Republicans hated JFK. Moreover, by seeking endorsements from establishment liberals like Kennedy, Leahy, Hart and Kerry is Obama not alienating the potential Republican votes he professes to be in a position to get?

BTW, I hope Kevin will change his mind again before Feb 5. But, what's the dog whistle stuff that Kevin is referring to. I don't get it.

....The Republican Party has a history of saying that the Democratic Party co-opts the minority vote, and only pays them lip-service.... Boorring at 3:51 PM

That is wrong on many grounds because the Democratic Party has been the party that supports African-Americans, their rights and aspirations and has policies of economic growth that help the African-American family as well as all others.

Jesse Jackson, whom I voted for twice because he had the chops, ran as a serious African-American candidate. I know he had moments of anger, but I cannot recall that he at any time played the victimhood and race cards like the Obama campaign surrogates have here.

Racism is the core of Republicanism. There will be no Obama Republicans. They will run a more nasty and divisive campaign than you have seen in your lifetime. Some of the things already being said by people whom are anti-Clinton at this juncture are very harsh on Obama .

...Green said to Matthews: "That was the show where you kept using the line, 'Do things go better with Coke?' You weren't raising it to be racial." Matthews responded: "Yeah, you're right. You're right. You caught me there."As Media Matters noted, Matthews began the December 14 edition of Hardball by asking, "Is the Clinton campaign pushing the drug story? When it comes to stopping Obama, do things go better with coke?" Matthews and his guests went on to use the word "cocaine" a total of 10 times during the show....

Victimization card? ....... them South Carolinians don't know sh** and voted for Jesse Jackson........You are voting to have the Himbo back in the White House.....jvoe at 3:59 PM

This is directly from the Rove play book: attack the strength and the Clinton's are known as not being racist. (Is "himbo" supposed to be some variation of sambo, because if it is, your smear is even more disgusting.)

This is so stupid. Was Clinton saying anything that wasn't true? Obama won because he's black. Black people are fifty percent of the South Carolina electorate and ten percent nationally. A candidate who appeals only to blacks can't win.

"Hillary didn't give a concession speech? Give me a break. Who cares?"

Kevin, As I said in an earlier thread, not giving a concession speech, partly to thank your supporters who have worked and voted for you, is a bit rude, don't you think? That's all, just rude. Also, cowardly. No way did Clinton want to compete with Obama's victory speech.

After hearing about Obama's South Carolina performance, a friend of mine said "why can't he just wait his turn?"

I've not actually heard it expressed explicitly before, but I have perceived this sentiment before. It's as if the presidency were some kind of service award. Taken alone, "length of service" is a horrible reason for choosing anyone for any job. Isn't that how the Republicans came to nominate Bob Dole?

You always want to hire the person who is best for the job. "Best" can be correlated with "most experienced," (it varies widely), but "experience" is a very different thing from "service." Using the former as a criteria makes some sense. The later, not so much.

You know Kevin, I think I see your problem. You've spent too much time reading liberal blogs and not enough time out in the real world.

By now the statement that the Clintons have been running a race-baiting campaign has so thoroughly permeated the pro-Obama blogosphere that people accept it as fact. Out in the real world, people understand that "fairy tale" is not a racist remark, that the MLK/LBJ thing was, as you say, idiotically mischaracterized, that women are voting for Hillary partly because of the idea of a woman president, that blacks are voting for Obama partly because of the idea of a black president, and you know what? All of this is a narrative invented by the media with the help of interested parties.

One of the things the Republicans like to harp on the most is what they view as liberal adherence to "political correctness". The number of flimsy charges of racism being thrown at anyone who doesn't support Obama isn't doing anything to help. I'm a committed Democrat and a student of the history of the civil rights movement. But I deeply resent how easily so many people with a long history of being out there and doing the right thing are being accused of racism by a bunch of folks sitting behind keyboards with no experience of their own. Don't fall into that trap, Kevin. You're one of the few sane voices left.

In NM independents and progressive democrats can not stand Hillary...Obama i predict will win NM. I think, nation wide independents and progressive democrats will vote for Obama.cleve

Kevin, I'm glad you are tilting Obama and I hope you stick to it because Hillary really isn't electable.

RealClear Polictics has a huge (fifty or so)list of poll results of hhead to hheads with Clinton/McCain and Obama/McCain. The results show tht McCain and Clinton are tied. However Obama beats McCain iin thrity seven polls, McCain only beats Obama in fourteen, and the balance are ties.

In addition Clinton's disappprovals are so highh and hhave been constant for so long that shhe has very little potenntial for gainning support. Obama doesn't have thhat handicap. Nor does mcCain. This means that inn a fighht between McCain and Clinton he will be able to persuade undecides or even pro-Clintn voters to go his way, but she will be up against the wall. There are far fewer voters that would consider voting for her than there are for McCain. Obama's situation is more comapable to McCain's: there are undecides and McCain supporters that mighht go for him'
The media is very powerful annd still hates Hillary.
Independents tend to vote for the "Likable" candidate. That means thha thhe independennts will be predisposed forObama or McCAin and predisposed against Hillary.
Obama can draw inn first time voters. Hillary can't. There is no evidence that large noumbers of angry women will stomp out and vote for her. The women-for-Hillary phenomenon is restricted to Deomcrats wqho will vote for whoever the candidate is.

So it doesn't look good at all if she is our nominee. She is toatlly beatable by McCAin. With Obama our chhances are pretty good. With Hillary--well, get ready for hearing from the press abouut how all the independents put him into office because he's such a stand-up straight talkin' guy.

Man, if the continued devolution of these comment threads is any indication of what you'll find when you get there, the last place I want to be is among the faithful at either a Clinton or an Obama rally.

I'm mailing my absentee ballot for Obama tomorrow morning. I will happily support Clinton over any Republican, but I prefer Obama. I like his thought processes when working through a problem. I recently saw on You Tube a 2002 interview of Obama being asked about the weapons inspectors, who had recently gone back into Iraq, and he just sounded so reasonable, with no obvious political spin to his remarks.

I know that most of the people here have pointed this out. It isn't that turn-up is higher, it is that it is higher than the the republican side in an almost entirely red state. SC should not have 85,000 more democratic primary votes than the republicans did. Sure, Iowa went for Bush, and thus is technically a red state, but nowhere near the red level of SC. The fact that ruby red states like SC have larger democratic primaries mean there is a chance that republicans will have to waging wars to defend their base states. That's the interesting fact from SC.

Yes, obama is a right winger -- this is the dumbest meme I've ever heard. Oh and apparently Ted Kennedy is also brain-washed, because he just endorsed. I guess Kennedy is also a right winger.

I have to echo the many people here who are lessed than impressed with Kevin's less than impressedness.

The increase in voters is a key story here. Obama's incredible speech actually said somethings I think are profound about our modern politics.

I'm thinkin' you've got some Boomer Syndrome or something that's pretty mailaisy and unappealing to those of us who want to move on. My Bush hatred is long gone and I've gained, yes, hope for something much, much better than just "Not Bush". Many of us are incredibly inspired by this man and do give a shit, unlike the Boomer Syndromers, I fear.

ZOMG I can't type today, sorry for the above. Don't know what happened.

Robert: One thing I'd love from you this week is some info on what Californians are hearing in the way of campaign commercials, local news reports, etc., in advance of the primary. Also, are there any local ballot issues that will affect the primary?

Political commercials are one thing one has to give up while spinning through the regular commercials with TiVo. I sometimes miss them a little, but not enough to watch them.

In California, the presidential and state primaries have been separated, and the initiatives that have qualified are on the presidential ballot. We have a change to term limits (somewhat fewer years, but they can all be served in the same house), separation of community college funding and governance from the K-12 system, and ratification of a bunch of gambling agreements with Indian tribes. Nobody is very worked up about any of them.

I don't like dog whistle racial appeals when Republicans do it, and I don't like it when Bill Clinton does it.

Dog whistles? Dog whistles you say? I think we have graduated to tornado warning sirens. Listen to this statement of the Clinton Campaign Co-Chair in the wake of losing in South Carolina.

Obama has done something very clever and we are going to be looking very, very carefully at his tears for Hurricane Katrina victims. We note that Senator Obama never had any tears for the 9/11 victims in the World Trade Center and the Pentagon. But he had tears for the 9th Ward. We think that as we go to states with a high percentage of White people voting in the primaries, these tears will have to looked at closely.

I suppose that I should explicitly state that I just fabricated the above quote since it’s just possible that some of our comment readers won’t “get it�. But if you think this would be an offensive and divisive statement, then you and I agree on something.

And I swear, somehow the statement has a familiar ring to it.

After watching Bill Clinton's Jesse Jackson comments, I honestly just think he is a sore loser.

I really think we may be overanalyzing this. Watching Clinton make his remarks after what was clearly an unwelcome question, I was strongly reminded of how Ted Kennedy and his family reacted back in 1980 when Kennedy tried to wrest the nomination away from an incumbent Jimmy Carter. When the Kennedy's started losing primaries in spite of their powerful political machine and their position as the sentimental darlings of the Democratic party, they got sullen and nasty and exposed their petulance for all to see.

Forget triangulation and their vaunted political cunning: I think their recent troubles (particularly Bill's) are missteps brought on by the fact that the Clintons have gotten so used to winning that they really don't know how to lose gracefully. If you look up "hubris" in the dictionary I believe you will find a reference to Bill Clinton.

This long drama of who Kevin supports seems strange to me. How can someone who knows so much about politics and the candidates, focusing on politics every day, be undecided at this point and now become "slightly pro-Obama" because of another comment by Bill trying to exploit the race issue? It takes this long for Kevin to realize that the Clintons are not virtuous and are manipulative motivated by their own ambition?

I think Hillary will win, Obama will be the VP nominee, and democrats will pretend all is well again. Maybe Kevin realizes that too and, emotionally, he is not ready to abandom Hillary when he expects the he will need to caress her a few months from now.

DONNA BRAZILE: "....For him to go after Obama using "fairy tale," calling him a "kid," as he did last week, it's an insult. And I tell you, as an African-American, I find his words and his tone to be very depressing." ....BRAZILE: Well, first of all, if Bill Bennett had said some of the things Bill Clinton is saying about Barack Obama, I would have called Bill Bennett out of his name and said that Bill Bennett should shut his mouth because he is not speaking in the right tone.
----------------

Racist undertones, or not?

I suppose that I should explicitly state that I just fabricated the above quote since it’s just possible that some of our comment readers won’t “get it�.

Even knowing that you fabricated the quote, I have no idea what point you thought you were making by doing so.

bobb - He's referring to what Jesse Jackson Jr. said about Hillary Clinton after the NH primary. The Obama campaign has been pushing this meme that the Clintons are racist/racebaiters for a while now, and the media has eagerly gobbled it up.

I think you (as with the rest of the media) have fallen for Obama's strategy hook, line, and sinker. The "fairy tale" and MLK/LBJ comments were not racist by any definition of anything. What has happened is that the Obama campaign, their surrogates, and allies in the MSM have successfully turned this into a situation where any criticism, shortcoming, or failure of Obama and his campaign (regardless of how legitimate) is portrayed as having racial undertones. In addition to the MLK/LBJ and “fairy tale� comments, just look at the media (and blog) reaction of the polling differentials between NH and SC. Obama was up 8 - 12 points going into NH, and lost by 3. This was a swing of 11% - 15%. The entire MSM (and many liberal bloggers) played up the racial angle as whites unwilling to vote for an AA candidate (the "Bradley effect") as the way to explain the disparity. Obama was up in SC by an equally large margin of 10% - 12%, yet won by 28%. So once again, we have a swing of almost 15% from the polling, and it is not news. Every criticism, every shortcoming, and every failure is somehow due to racism. If he gets elected, are we not going to be allowed to comment or criticize his administration? That was essentially the same situation we had with Bush after 9/11 (remember, any critique was unpatriotic), and we know how well that ended! I haven’t voted R in 15 years, but this is getting enough to make me consider changing parties.

OK, Kevin, so just what exactly do you think Bill Clinton really was saying when he brought up the case of Jesse Jackson? Don't you think that if you can act as if it's meaning is plain as day, and can't even be argued, why don't you at least have the courage to articulate that meaning precisely?

You certainly seem to imply that Clinton simply played the race card. If you're going to make such an extreme claim, don't you think you might be obliged to defend it, rather than simply assert it?

So, since you won't on your own, let's consider what Clinton might have had in mind.

Let's say that Clinton was attempting to communicate that Obama, like Jesse Jackson before him, was a candidate of primary appeal to other African-Americans. Is that by itself an outrageous comment, and if so, why so?

Here's the problem. Certainly it can be said of Jesse Jackson that he has always had as his core constituency other African-Americans. I don't see how one can look at his behavior over the years, his willingness to adopt causes of African-Americans even in exceedingly weak cases. The problem with Obama is that his campaign has done the exact like in the weeks leading up to the SC primary.

I think it is entirely fair for non African-Americans to ask themselves the question, given Jackson's or Obama's basic allegiance to African-Americans, why should we believe that they will represent our own interests fairly and vigorously? Why shouldn't we have a candidate who pays other groups no special favors?

I'd like to see people argue that the problem I've raised with politicians who play identity politics is not a real one. I'd like to see why those who are outside the chosen identity group of the politician don't have every right to feel that they are being in an important way excluded, and that they might look elsewhere for a politician who would attempt to be more even-handed. If you can't make out that argument, and explain why identity politics can never be overdone by a politician, then you have to admit that in the case of some politicians, there's a problem that voters should have some way of thinking about in their decisions, and which other politicians and pundits should have some way of communicating to the voters.

Now, I simply ask, how are you allowed to communicate that sort of deficiency in a minority politician in our society? Essentially every way you try to put it, you are going to be accused of racism or sexism or you-name-it. Now Clinton put it in a way that has certainly turned out to be highly inflammatory.

But how are you allowed to communicate it? That's the problem -- and it's certainly the problem that faced Clinton after the SC primary.

I'm not sure what the right solution is to the problem in communication. But I can see that there weren't any good options in front of Bill Clinton, and it hardly helps when his utterance, as unfortunate as it turns out to have been, is treated to the sort of hysterical reaction he gets from you, Kevin.

As for the Kennedy endorsement, big deal. He's a fat drunken slob who should have done time for manslaughter.

Bill, is that you?

bobb: The quote is the same as the quote by Obama Co-Chair Jesse Jackson the morning after losing in New Hampshire. I substituted Clinton Co-Chair for Jackson, and World Trade Center for Katrina victims.

See Jesse Jackson video at: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eNrlSn7ndAA

What do you think? Was I fair?

No surprises? The magnitude of the Obama win was pretty surprising, in my book. Bill's Clinton's proxy "concession" speech was pretty surprising, too, a preview of what another Clinton WH would entail. After Iowa, Clinton wins in NH and NV inspired the media to celebrate her as "the come-back kid." I wonder how the media will spin Obama's big win??

Another surprising thing is that I may cast my vote for Obama at the Feb 5 caucus rather than for John Edwards, though Edwards has been my man all along. I love what John Edwards has been saying, I love that he has been keeping the progressive agenda front and center. But do I want a brokered convention or a Obama with more strength coming into the convention? That is the current question.

Off topic, I wonder how Hillary Clinton would feel towards Big Bill if his big mouth costs her the Democratic nomination. The marriage vow "for better or worse" could get another severe test.

I think Hillary is still likely to win the nomination. Contrary to conventional wisdom, I suspect she's also more electable than Obama. And Obama's continued unwillingness to defend progressive policies on explicitly progressive grounds still bothers me.

If the nomination was to be solely decided by party insiders, yes. Thankfully it is not, and the facts are that while Obama has beaten Hillary by large margins in a couple of states, Hillary has at best beat Obama out by a few puny points in a couple others. Secondly, you act as though South Carolina has "nothing new to tell us" when in fact it has quite a lot to tell us, when you consider that in pretty much all the states south of Kentucky, black voters make up from 25 - 40+% of the electorate...and the reason these state have typically gone Republican in national elections is because the