Posted: January 26, 2008 8:10 PM
Clinton Trails Obama By Double Digits; Edwards Third in S.C.
 Email This
Barack Obama, the first-term Illinois senator, scored a decisive victory Saturday in South Carolina primary — the Democrats’ final early test before Super Tuesday on Feb. 5.
“South Carolina voters rejected the politics of the past and they wanted something different,” said Robert Gibbs, a spokesman for Obama.
Sen. Hillary Clinton was projected to come in second, trailing by double digits. Former Sen. John Edwards, who won his native state four years ago, was expected to come in third. Clinton, whose husband former President Bill Clinton campaigned hard throughout the state in the days ahead of the vote, decided to fly to Tennessee, one of the Feb. 5 states, leaving as the polls were closing.
“[The Clinton campaign] already spent all day lowering expectations,” Gloria Borger said on CNN. “In November, Hillary Clinton was beating Obama by 20 points.”
In fact, Clinton campaign officials were looking beyond Saturday’s vote.
“This summer Senator Obama’s campaign flatly predicted victory in South Carolina and today they lead by 12,” Clinton communications director Howard Wolfson said even before the results were in. “Regardless of the outcome today, this race moves to Florida where hundreds of thousands of Democrats will vote on Tuesday and then on to February 5, where we are well positioned.”
The results were a blow to the Edwards campaign, which looked to gain traction as a third viable candidate for the nomination.
Edwards apparently did well among white men and in poorer parts of the state, but he failed to catch Clinton. He appeared midweek on the “Late Show with David Letterman” to say he wanted to represent the “grown-up wing of the Democratic party.”
CNN exit polls projected that some 81 percent of black voters backed Obama, while he drew some 24 percent of white votes.
“If this victory matches the exit polls and he wins this state by 30 points, it is an enormous victory,” Tim Russert said. “He can say he put together a winning coalition.”
In the days before the vote, Clinton argued that Obama would win in the state because of support from black voters.
“[Obama] ran as a Democratic candidate for president who happens to be black, not as the black candidate. And the Clinton campaign set out deliberately… to make him the black candidate,” Mark Shields said on Friday’s NewsHour. “Bill Clinton is already into a pre-spin about the South Carolina result. And it reads this way: ‘They tell me Hillary can’t win down here because blacks are going to support Barack Obama overwhelmingly.’”
That campaign tactic appeared to have an impact Saturday. Nearly six in 10 voters said the former president’s efforts for his wife was important to their choice, and among them, slightly more favored Obama than Hillary Clinton.
“What they are saying is we want to do away with this race-type politicking,” Rep. Elijah Cummings, D-Md., told MSNBC.
But whatever the role of former President Clinton, Obama’s support appeared to be widespread. Overall, Obama defeated Clinton among both men and women.
The political victory was Obama’s first since he won the kick-off Iowa caucuses on Jan. 3. Clinton, a New York senator and former first lady, scored an upset in the New Hampshire primary a few days later. They split the Nevada caucuses, she winning the turnout race, he gaining a one-delegate margin. In a historic race, she hopes to become the first woman to occupy the White House while Obama is the strongest black contender in history.
-- By , NewsHour with Jim Lehrer | Comments | Link
|
Vote 2008 Subscriptions 
Senator Barack Obama has broad appeal across all of our so called "divides. For the press and the Clinton Campaign to classify him as "the black" candidate rather than a "candidate who happens to be African American" is frankly racist distortion and spin, and they should be ashamed. It smacks in the face of all Americans who want to heal those ancient wounds. He is a candidate for President, and clearly his appeal is broad, otherwise he wouldn't have won in the "white" state of Iowa, or compete very well in New Hampshire and Nevada. His appeal is based on tapping into the deeper longings of Americans to find common ground and purpose beyond what separates us. The press doesn't like that, because it doesn't make good copy. Drama, division and pain are what the press craves and spits out.
It's clear how the Clintons will spin their colossal loss in SC -- they were the victims of a "vast dark-skinned conspiracy."
Obama vs. Clinton is the future vs. the past. I was backing Richardson (despite the fact that he was a second-tier candidate) as he was the best qualified candidate, but with his withdrawal, Obama steps to the front. His speeches are reminiscent of JFK's encouragement of "yes, we can" attitude and of RFK's "look for the better way." The man is truly inspirational. And that's what we need in a president. The power does not reside in the WHite House, the leadership, vision, and ideals of the country do. And Obama can lead us. He will truly be the first US president of the 21st century.
Peter Porcupine's remarks are spot on so far as they go, but I'd like to look somewhat further back in time. For all his charisma and intelligence, President Kennedy did not do for our citizens what Franklin Roosevelt did; talk to the country...weekly...to help instill a new sense of purpose in the general populace. President Obama will be the first president in over sixty years who can move a large majority into a new world of political thought and dialogue. Let us hope that he selects wise administrators whom we can all trust. Then he can turn his attention to reviving the American sense of purpose that we knew in the forties. No more preemptive wars will be a wonderful start.