Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

TIME: Obama's Rout

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU
 
DeepModem Mom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-27-08 01:58 AM
Original message
TIME: Obama's Rout
Obama's Rout Rejiggers the Race
By KAREN TUMULTY
Saturday, Jan. 26, 2008


Democratic candidate for president Barack Obama and his wife Michelle greet supporters after Obama won the South Carolina primary.
(Charles Rex Arbogast/AP)

There was only way to describe Barack Obama's victory over Hillary Clinton and John Edwards in South Carolina: It was a rout. "After four great contests in every corner of this country, we have the most votes, the most delegates, and the most diverse coalition of Americans that we've seen in a long, long time," Obama declared at his victory celebration in Columbia. "There are young and old; rich and poor. They are black and white; Latino and Asian and Native American. They are Democrats from Des Moines and Independents from Concord, and yes, some Republicans from rural Nevada and we've got young people from all across this country who've never had a reason to participate until now."

Obama's impressive win meant all the more given the nature of politics in South Carolina, a state whose history is fraught with race and class. Some observers wondered if the state's voters were becoming more racially polarized in the final days before the primary. That speculation was fueled by one late McClatchy/MSNBC survey that suggested Obama could expect to receive no more than 10% of the white vote, half of what the same poll had shown only a week before. But Obama instead won about a quarter of the white vote overall, and around half of young white voters, on his way to a commanding 55% of the total vote (Clinton finished second with roughly 27% and Edwards came in third with 18%). The excitement around Obama's candidacy pushed turnout to record levels — a kind of surge, says Obama strategist Cornell Belcher, that "is something only Barack Obama is capable of bringing to the table."...

Still, the sobering reality for the Obama campaign is that Clinton's massive organization will present a formidable challenge in the 20-plus states that will be voting on February 5. Clinton, knowing that bad news was coming, didn't even hold a final rally for her supporters in South Carolina; shortly after the polls closed, her campaign plane was headed for Tennessee. She issued a terse written statement noting that she had called Obama to "wish him well," and adding, "We now turn our attention to the millions of Americans who will make their voices heard in Florida and the twenty-two states as well as American Samoa who will vote on February 5th." Bill Clinton, at a rally in Missouri, added: "Now we go to February 5, when millions of Americans finally get in the act."

The former President was actually the first Clinton to speak in the wake of Obama's triumph Saturday evening, and it only underscored how his outsized, vocal presence on the trail has threatened to overshadow his wife. Earlier in the day, Clinton had churlishly compared Obama's victory to that of Jesse Jackson in 1984 and 1988, a remark that will likely further fuel disaffection about the Clintons amongst African-American voters. There was evidence that Obama's victory was also a repudiation of the brand of hard-knuckled politics that both Clintons had brought to the South Carolina contest. Exit polls indicated that Bill Clinton's campaigning made a difference to about 6 in 10 South Carolina Democratic primary voters. But of those voters, 47% went for Barack Obama, while only 38% went for Hillary Clinton. Fourteen percent voted for John Edwards. The Obama campaign gleefully noted that in the mostly black precincts that Bill Clinton visted in Greenville, as much as 80% of the vote went to Obama.

http://www.time.com/time/politics/article/0,8599,1707277,00.html
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
Barack_America Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-27-08 02:03 AM
Response to Original message
1. A fair assessment of the situation, I'd say. Thanks for posting...n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bicoastal Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-27-08 02:03 AM
Response to Original message
2. "Rejiggers" is a silly word.
And yes, all in all, that's the only aspect of this article I didn't like :)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DeepModem Mom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-27-08 02:06 AM
Response to Reply #2
3. That's why I left it out of the subject line. But I thought the article was worth posting.
:)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
lvx35 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-27-08 02:57 AM
Response to Reply #2
4. Dude, what are you talking about? Rejiggers is an awesome word.
I've never heard it before in my life but I'm going to use it all the time now. Now if you'll excuse me, I've got to go rejigger my things...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DeepModem Mom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-27-08 08:45 AM
Response to Reply #4
6. LOL!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MH1 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-27-08 09:00 AM
Response to Reply #2
9. Isn't it regional?
I never heard the word at all until I worked with a couple folks from the South. One was from Georgia, the other from North Carolina. I'm not sure who used it first but they both used it as if it was a common word, but it always seemed silly to me, too.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FrenchieCat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-27-08 02:59 AM
Response to Original message
5. The word is OK. I'm not PC to this extent.......
double JJ doesn't mean a thing!

What it all means is that Obama's got game!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dsc Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-27-08 08:51 AM
Response to Original message
7. I know I will get flamed for this
but typical of Obama not one single, solitary word about gays. He listed virtually every possible demographic under the sun but somehow, I am sure coincidence only, left out gays. And you all wonder why we get so pissed.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Sultana Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-27-08 08:54 AM
Response to Reply #7
8. Geez! nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dsc Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-27-08 09:11 AM
Response to Reply #8
11. Imagine for about 30 seconds
that Hillary gave a victory speech in which she mentions every demographic on planet earth but African Americans. What do you think the reaction of African Americans would be? Why should mine be any different whatsoever.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MH1 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-27-08 09:11 AM
Response to Reply #7
10. First, you have to get elected.
Now are you going to flame me for that? But it's true.

If you really are interested in where Obama is on GLBT issues and maybe making your presence felt:

http://pride.barackobama.com/page/content/lgbthome

If you are like most of the vocal GLBT advocates at DU his positions won't satisfy you but at least they are steps in the right direction, aren't they?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dsc Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-27-08 09:15 AM
Response to Reply #10
12. I want evidence he will stand up for those positions
of which I have seen precious little. ENDA won't pass itself. An anti hate crimes bill won't pass itself. AIDS funding won't pass itself. I was a huge Dean supporter because he demonstrated both with Civil Unions and his stump speech, that he would bring our issues to the fore. Of the big three, the one who I am least sure will do this is Obama. He has shown every sign of being a candidate who will tell us the right thing all the while he does jack about it once he has power. I really hope, if he is the nominee, I am wrong. But nearly all the evidence shows me to be right.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MH1 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-27-08 09:43 AM
Response to Reply #12
13. Did you read the pdf? It lists specific instances where he did.
http://www.barackobama.com/pdf/lgbt.pdf

Here's the excerpts:

* Obama co-sponsored legislation to expand federal hate crimes law to include crimes perpetrated because of sexual orientation or gender identity.

* Obama sponsored legislation in the Illinois State Senate that would ban employment discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation.

* Obama voted against the Federal Marriage Amendment, which would have defined marriage as between
a man and a woman and prevented judicial extension of marriage-like rights to same-sex or other unmarried couples.

* {Obama} traveled to Kenya and took a public HIV test to encourage testing and reduce the stigma of the disease. Obama worked to reauthorize the Ryan White CARE Act, one of the largest sources of federal funds for primary health care and support services for HIV/AIDS patients.


I think taking the AIDs test was a little brazen, given the culture in this country, and I think Obama doing that shows that when motivated, he will take at least some risk to do something he thinks is right. That's just my interpretation though, ymmv.

GLBT isn't my top issue so I can't provide much more info on Obama's positions. You may want to check out the facebook or myspace groups - maybe you will find some better informed folks there.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dsc Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-27-08 10:43 AM
Response to Reply #13
14. The AIDS test, given where he took it, is a straight issue
In Kenya and other African countries AIDS is hugely a heterosexual disease. As to the rest, none of them are really public advocation. Sponsering, cosponsering, etc. are the least I would expect from anyone.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MH1 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-27-08 11:21 AM
Response to Reply #14
19. But it was widely publicized here, where apparently it is a "gay" issue
which I find inexplicable, by the way. In my original version of the post above, I mentioned that I don't like politicians lumping HIV/AIDS in with GLBT issues because it is really a health issue. But then I re-read your post and realized that you specifically mentioned it, so I thought I should mention it.

There is more detail on what Obama has done on HIV/AIDS here:
http://obama.senate.gov/issues/health_care/

Note here is the correct link for the http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d110:s.00823:">Microbicide Development Act (it is incorrect in that page).

How's this for public advocacy? Well, maybe it is more back-office get the job done stuff, but anyway:

In Illinois, an estimated 40,000 – 42,000 individuals are living with HIV/AIDS. The Ryan White Care Act (RWCA) provides the majority of Federal support for those suffering from HIV/AIDS in our country. This legislation was reauthorized during the final hours of the 109th Congress, although changes in the epidemic - as well as insufficient funding - made it a difficult reauthorization to tackle. Throughout the reauthorization process, Senator Obama worked closely with RWCA service providers, the Chicago Department of Public Health, and the Illinois Department of Public Health to analyze and find ways to improve the program for Illinois and for the nation. Senator Obama will continue to protect the multifaceted care upon which RWCA beneficiaries depend.


On World AIDS Day he went into the belly of the beast to publicly advocate for improving treatment and not blaming the victim. You may not like that he went to an evangelical church or some of the arguments he used there, but I think this part really expresses what a lot of us like about Obama:

But the reason for us to step up our efforts can't simply be instrumental. There are more fundamental reasons to care. Reasons related to our own humanity. Reasons of the soul.

Like no other illness, AIDS tests our ability to put ourselves in someone else's shoes - to empathize with the plight of our fellow man. While most would agree that the AIDS orphan or the transfusion victim or the wronged wife contracted the disease through no fault of their own, it has too often been easy for some to point to the unfaithful husband or the promiscuous youth or the gay man and say "This is your fault. You have sinned."

I don't think that's a satisfactory response. My faith reminds me that we all are sinners.

My faith also tells me that - as Pastor Rick has said - it is not a sin to be sick. My Bible tells me that when God sent his only Son to Earth, it was to heal the sick and comfort the weary; to feed the hungry and clothe the naked; to befriend the outcast and redeem those who strayed from righteousness.

Living His example is the hardest kind of faith - but it is surely the most rewarding. It is a way of life that can not only light our way as people of faith, but guide us to a new and better politics as Americans.

For in the end, we must realize that the AIDS orphan in Africa presents us with the same challenge as the gang member in South Central, or the Katrina victim in New Orleans, or the uninsured mother in North Dakota.

We can turn away from these Americans, and blame their problems on themselves, and embrace a politics that's punitive and petty, divisive and small.

Or we can embrace another tradition of politics - a tradition that has stretched from the days of our founding to the glory of the civil rights movement, a tradition based on the simple idea that we have a stake in one another - and that what binds us together is greater than what drives us apart, and that if enough people believe in the truth of that proposition and act on it, then we might not solve every problem, but we can get something meaningful done for the people with whom we share this Earth.


http://obama.senate.gov/speech/061201-race_against_time_-_world_aids_day_speech/index.html

I think this speech was courageous and masterful, in that it called on the evangelical community - who too easily blame the victim while claiming not to - to really live up to the teachings of their church.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dsc Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-27-08 12:41 PM
Response to Reply #19
24. Truth be told I am troubled by the 'sinner' construct
If gays are sinners then they would, by definition, by unrepetent ones. And we all know what happens to those according to their philosophy. Sure that is a better construct than some other evangelical ones but it still troubles me.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
george_maniakes Donating Member (831 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-27-08 10:51 AM
Response to Reply #7
15. i dont mean to be rude, but he probably included you when he mentioned whites, blacks,...
asians, latinos and native americans. Unless you are of arabic heritage maybe, or austrailian aborginal (are they considered black?). And what group do you put albanians?

Otherwise, if he mentioned gay people, he would have to mention straight people too, and bisexuals, and on and on and on.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dsc Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-27-08 11:01 AM
Response to Reply #15
16. and that would be bad, how?
I didn't decide to do a laundry list of demographics, he did. I didn't decide to send a homophobic minister to campaign there, he did. I also didn't decide to mention, in the same speech, dividing based on religion, he did. Once he went the demographic route, which was his choice, not mine, then he should have finished it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
george_maniakes Donating Member (831 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-27-08 11:11 AM
Response to Reply #16
17. he could have spent an hour up there talking about this and that demographic...
Obviously he's going to mention race if bill clinton is bringing up jesse jackson. I'm sure there are hundreds of demographics out there
that would have liked a mention, and i can understand how you would have liked that specific one mentioned. but to consider it a slam by omission is a little much.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dsc Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-27-08 11:14 AM
Response to Reply #17
18. He listed each and every race, he mentioned gender, he mentioned religion
He left out one, and only one, major demographic group. The one, and only demographic group he insulted by having McClurkin speak on stage.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
RoadRage Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-27-08 11:39 AM
Response to Reply #18
20. So you're not Male, Female, Rich, Poor, Black, White, Latino or Asian?
He DIDN'T leave out your "demographic".. he just didn't point out the one that you have decided is the one that you like to be identified with.

Most Homosexuals that I know are also male or female, black, white, asian or hispanic, and also rich or poor. They are also older or younger.

So STOP turning that specific statement into an "Anti Gay" statement. He covered you... he just didn't identify you by every friggin adjective used to describe you.

And, Obama is not Anti Gay... we've shown that 10,000 times on these boards. There is nothing anyone will say to change your mind.. so vote for Hillary who is less likely to push for Civil Unions or Edwards who has little change of getting elected. That way we can lose the election in November and then see how often McCain or Romney mention Civil Unions in a positive light.

Right.. thinking about that - and I don't think Obama is really the Axis of Evil that the GLBT community has painted him to be. Please remember - he still does need votes from people who don't agree with your lifestyle. Just realize that he does, but he has to get elected before he can do a damn thing to help you out.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dsc Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-27-08 11:59 AM
Response to Reply #20
21. Let's say Hillary had given her speech
and did the following. Thanked men and women, protestants, Catholics, Jews, and Muslims. Then thanked gays, straights, and bisexuals. But didn't mention race. Just what do you think the reaction would have been? Why shouldn't I feel the exact same way?

And it isn't a fucking lifestyle.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
RoadRage Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-27-08 12:04 PM
Response to Reply #21
22. If she left out all races, no one would notice...
Everyone has a sexual orientation, and everyone has a race. If HRC didn't mention ANY race - then no one would care.

Just like Obama didn't thank all of the HETEROSEXUALS that voted for him.

But, you can continue your useless fight on this if you want... and turn this into something it's not.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dsc Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-27-08 12:30 PM
Response to Reply #22
23. Given your unapologetic use of lifestyle
it is hardly surprising you don't get it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
populistdriven Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-27-08 05:06 PM
Response to Original message
25. K&R! nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Fri May 10th 2024, 07:42 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC