Obama obliterates

With 99% of SC precincts reporting, Barack Obama has won a commanding victory over Hilary Clinton + John Edwards:

Obama: 55%
Clinton: 27%
Edwards: 18%
Kucinich: 0% (551 votes statewide)

The best news to come out of this is that it increases the chance that later primaries- like Pennsylvania's- will be meaningful. What else does this mean? One thing that the Clinton camp can learn is that going aggressively negative on Obama isn't a winning strategy- clearly, it didn't help her in SC. Another thing, which is bad for people who want more than two choices, is that Edwards is probably finished, with a rather weak 3rd place showing in his native state (while he was a NC senator, he was actually raised in SC). Ditto Kucinich- a 0% showing is never an encouraging outcome.

On the positive sign, Obama clearly won this primary more than Clinton + Edwards lost it. Clinton's perceived edge among women voters appears to not have existed, as exit polls indicate that Obama took 50% of the female vote, while Clinton took 30%. The African American vote, on the other hand, came out *huge* for Obama, as he took 77% of voters 18-29, 82% of those 30-44, 79% of those 45-59, 73% of those 60+. He also did extremely well among young voters, taking 65% of those 18-24, and 70% of those 25-29. In fact, the only age group where Clinton out-polled Obama was 65 and older, where Clinton took 40% as compared to Obama's 32%.

While I suspect that Kucinich might not stay in the race much longer, I believe that Edwards will hang in at least through 2/5. It does look more + more likely, though, that Pennsylvanians will actually have a say in who is nominated for President, at least on the Democratic side.

Working for Obama,
-Z

A President Like My Father - Caroline Kennedy

Zorro beat me to it, I wanted to be the first to blog here about Senator Obama's 2 to 1 victory tonight in South Carolina. The numbers speak for themselves and I think the exit polls may be very informative as we move forward.

Last week D.E. II asked us which candidate the progressive community should support. I have shared my opinion, and as the Eastern Pennsylvania Coordinator for the Obama campaign I will repeat over and over why his vision deserves our support.

Today I would like to offer the words of Caroline Kennedy. Please read her thoughts in the New York Times. I am not very high tech, and maybe Dan or Ben or Ray can do their magic and cut and paste it here for us. I will offer this link.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/27/opinion/27kennedy/html?ref=opinion

The torch has been passed to a new generation. The election must be about the future and not the past. Senator Obama represents the future that I want, I hope you will agree and join our campaign.

"Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful committed citizens can change the world. Indeed, it is the only thing that ever has."
— Margaret Mead

Seth

Another blogosphere vid for Obama

Another pro-Obama video I've seen ricocheting around the blogosphere is this one, from former Illinois NOW president Lorna Brett. Apparently Brett was a Clinton supporter, but switched to Obama after Clinton and her proxies began distorting Obama's record on choice.


--Tim (aka Short Schrift)

A question for Obama supporters

I received the following from a national NOW board member in response to the comments of Lorna Brett Howard, the former President of Chicago NOW, on this video

“I trust the President of Illinois NOW, who has criticized Sen. Obama for his “present” votes on important reproductive rights issues when he served in the Illinois Senate, and I agree with her criticism. “

Does anyone know anything about these present votes and if this criticism is valid?

Legislative Strategy (the word is)

The story I have heard, from the former president of Chicago NOW and also on NPR, is that the "present" votes were part of an overall strategy, approved or orchestrated by NOW and other womens' rights and pro-choice groups, to (among other things) give cover on key votes to legislators in re-election fights, etc.

From the Chicago Tribune's Washington Blog (Swamp politics):

"When we needed someone to take a stand, Senator Obama took a pass," said Grabenhofer, criticizing him for voting 'present' on many key votes. "He wasn't there for us then and we don't expect him to be now."

That, say other advocates of women's rights, is unfair and unfortunate.

"There's never been a problem with Sen. Obama. It's really a shame," said Lorna Brett, a Clinton supporter and former president of Chicago NOW.

Brett and other women's rights and abortion rights advocates say they often asked lawmakers to vote present as part of a larger legislative strategy.

"In this case, I think both candidates are committed to choice and I hate to see the pro-choice community cannibalize itself on this issue,'' said Brett. "If either candidate wins, the pro-choice community is in good hands."

Steve Trombley, CEO and president of Planned Parenthood/Chicago Action, said there's a reason his organization has endorsed Obama throughout his political career.

"Senator Obama has been a consistent supporter of reproductive rights while in the legislature and we worked closely with him in developing and implementing legislative strategies to protect the rights of women in Illinois."

Another (partial) answer

From a bit of looking around, this looks to me like underhanded dealing by the Clinton campaign - similar to the ridiculous "Obama said he supported Reagan's policies" tactic.

Here's what I read that leads me to feel that way:

http://www.time-blog.com/swampland/2008/01/obama_campaign_defends_presen...

In an unusual pre-emptive conference call with reporters the Obama campaign today defended his series of “present” votes on abortion measures in the Illinois State Senate.

The votes were actually part of a strategy developed by Planned Parenthood to stop Republican attacks on pro-choice candidates. “We had a very astute and devious Republican leader that we knew was using abortion votes as wedge issues, putting those votes into mailers to help defeat pro-choice Democrats,” Pam Sutherland, president and CEO of Illinois Planned Parenthood, told reporters on the call. “It was our strategy, Planned Parenthood’s, to decide that a “present” vote was the same thing as a “no” vote.”

Then-State Senator Obama “was always ready to vote “no” on these bills but he understood how it important it was to help his fellow colleagues,” Sutherland continued. Obama “was key to the strategy… not only did Democrats follow suit, so did many Republicans. The strategy actually worked… very few of those bills actually made it into law.”

Sutherland underlined that Planned Parenthood was not endorsing Obama or any other candidate but they felt it was important to defend his record since he was acting at their behest.Ok, it's the New York Sun, but...

And another link - Ok, it's the New York Sun, but.....

http://www.nysun.com/article/69700

WASHINGTON — Senator Clinton is going after Senator Obama's record on abortion rights, but on at least one measure, she may be holding him to a tougher standard than she holds herself.

Senator Clinton's campaign in recent days has ratcheted up its criticism of Mr. Obama's voting history in the Illinois state Senate, citing seven instances in which he voted "present" instead of "no" on bills that were seen as infringing on a woman's right to choose.

Yet one of those bills — the "Born-Alive Infants Protection Act" — is similar to legislation that Mrs. Clinton and 97 other senators supported in Congress in 2001. The federal measure, sponsored by a leading abortion foe, Senator Santorum of Pennsylvania, was intended as a protection against botched abortions and required that a fetus that survived an abortion be defined as a person.

The federal legislation defines a person "born alive" to mean "the complete expulsion or extraction from his or her mother of that member, at any stage of development, who after such expulsion or extraction breathes or has a beating heart, pulsation of the umbilical cord, or definite movement of voluntary muscles, regardless of whether the umbilical cord has been cut, and regardless of whether the expulsion or extraction occurs as a result of natural or induced labor, caesarean section, or induced abortion."

Mr. Obama voted "present" on legislation in 2001 that contained nearly identical language as part of what he and his supporters have described as a strategy engineered by abortion rights advocates. The effort was designed to rebuff attempts by anti-abortion legislators to paint Democratic lawmakers as extremist by forcing them to vote against legislation involving "live birth" abortions.

Leading abortion rights groups, including NARAL and Planned Parenthood, did not oppose the federal legislation, citing additional language that made clear that the bill would have no impact on Roe v. Wade, the 1973 Supreme Court decision forbidding states from banning abortion. "Nothing in this section," the added sentence in the federal version reads, "shall be construed to affirm, deny, expand, or contract any legal status or legal right applicable to any member of the species homo sapiens at any point prior to being born alive as defined in this section."

The Clinton campaign said the distinction between the federal and the state measure was clear. "Senator Clinton backed a bill that had specific protections for Roe v. Wade. Senator Obama voted present on a bill that had no protections for Roe," a spokesman, Blake Zeff, said. "That's a rather significant difference."

Mr. Obama spoke out against the Illinois bill when it was debated in the state Senate in 2001, testifying that he was voting "present" because he thought he would not pass "constitutional muster" as a restriction on abortion. He voted "no" on a similar version of the measure when it came up in 2002.

He also argued in 2004 that the state and federal bills were substantively different, telling the Chicago Tribune that he would have voted for the "born alive" bill had he been in Congress at the time.

An anti-abortion advocate who testified before Congress and before Mr. Obama's committee in the Illinois Senate, Jill Stanek, sees it differently, saying that Mrs. Clinton and the abortion rights community were overstating the distinctions in the legislation. "Clinton is being so audacious trying to claim that Obama is less pro-choice when on the very same bill she voted pro-life," Ms. Stanek said. "It's just astounding."

Yet another Obama vid

I haven't been quite as impressed as some have been by examples of Obama's oratory posted here and elsewhere.

But I did click through to watch Obama's S.C. victory speech last night, and I have to say, "wow."

If nothing else, it would be very refreshing to have a president who is a good public speaker - not exactly an attribute I use a voting criteria (although it does lend weight to his image as a visionary leader), but certainly a nice side-benefit. And this video shows to me that as an orator, Obama is head and shoulders above Clinton, Edwards, or any other candidate I've seen on either side of the aisle in my lifetime.

But even more than that, I found the content of Obama's rhetoric quite moving.

See what ya'll think

http://my.barackobama.com/page/community/post/samgrahamfelsen/CGxdg

didn't Kucinich

drop out earlier this week?

Kucinich

Ja, he did drop out this past week. That would certainly explain the 0% showing.

-Z

Senator Kennedy Endorses Senator Obama

Here are the remarks of Senator Ted Kennedy as prepared for delivery...

Thank you, Caroline. Thank you for that wonderful introduction and for your courage and bold vision, for your insight and understanding, and for the power and reach of your words. Like you, we too “want a president who appeals to the hopes of those who still believe in the American Dream, and those around the world who still believe in the American ideal; and who can lift our spirits, and make us believe again.” Thank you, Caroline. Your mother and father would be so proud today.

Thank you, Patrick, for your leadership in Congress and for being here to celebrate and support a leader who truly has the power to inspire and make America good again, “from sea to shining sea.”

Thank you, American University.

I feel change in the air.

Every time I’ve been asked over the past year who I would support in the Democratic Primary, my answer has always been the same: I’ll support the candidate who inspires me, who inspires all of us, who can lift our vision and summon our hopes and renew our belief that our country’s best days are still to come.

I’ve found that candidate. And it looks to me like you have too.

But first, let me say how much I respect the strength, the work and dedication of two other Democrats still in the race, Hillary Clinton and John Edwards. They are my friends; they have been my colleagues in the Senate. John Edwards has been a powerful advocate for economic and social justice. And Hillary Clinton has been in the forefront on issues ranging from health care to the rights of women around the world. Whoever is our nominee will have my enthusiastic support.

Let there be no doubt: We are all committed to seeing a Democratic President in 2008.

But I believe there is one candidate who has extraordinary gifts of leadership and character, matched to the extraordinary demands of this moment in history.

He understands what Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. called the “fierce urgency of now.”

He will be a president who refuses to be trapped in the patterns of the past. He is a leader who sees the world clearly without being cynical. He is a fighter who cares passionately about the causes he believes in, without demonizing those who hold a different view.

He is tough-minded, but he also has an uncommon capacity to appeal to “the better angels of our nature.”

I am proud to stand here today and offer my help, my voice, my energy and my commitment to make Barack Obama the next President of the United States.

Like most of the nation, I was moved four years ago as he told us a profound truth—that we are not, we must not be, just red states and blue states, but one United States. And since that time I have marveled at his grit and his grace as he traveled this country and inspired record turnouts of people of all ages, of all races, of all genders, of all parties and faiths to get “fired up” and “ready to go.”

I’ve seen him connect with people from every walk of life and with Senators on both sides of the aisle. With every person he meets, every crowd he inspires, and everyone he touches, he generates new hope that our greatest days as a nation are still ahead, and this generation of Americans, like others before us, can unite to meet our own rendezvous with destiny.

We know the true record of Barack Obama. There is the courage he showed when so many others were silent or simply went along. From the beginning, he opposed the war in Iraq.

And let no one deny that truth.

There is the great intelligence of someone who could have had a glittering career in corporate law, but chose instead to serve his community and then enter public life.

There is the tireless skill of a Senator who was there in the early mornings to help us hammer out a needed compromise on immigration reform— who always saw a way to protect both national security and the dignity of people who do not have a vote. For them, he was a voice for justice.

And there is the clear effectiveness of Barack Obama in fashioning legislation to put high quality teachers in our classrooms—and in pushing and prodding the Senate to pass the most far-reaching ethics reform in its history.

Now, with Barack Obama, there is a new national leader who has given America a different kind of campaign—a campaign not just about himself, but about all of us. A campaign about the country we will become, if we can rise above the old politics that parses us into separate groups and puts us at odds with one another.

I remember another such time, in the 1960s, when I came to the Senate at the age of 30. We had a new president who inspired the nation, especially the young, to seek a new frontier. Those inspired young people marched, sat in at lunch counters, protested the war in Vietnam and served honorably in that war even when they opposed it.

They realized that when they asked what they could do for their country, they could change the world.

It was the young who led the first Earth Day and issued a clarion call to protect the environment; the young who enlisted in the cause of civil rights and equality for women; the young who joined the Peace Corps and showed the world the hopeful face of America.

At the fifth anniversary celebration of the Peace Corps, I asked one of those young Americans why they had volunteered.

And I will never forget the answer: “It was the first time someone asked me to do something for my country.”

This is another such time.

I sense the same kind of yearning today, the same kind of hunger to move on and move America forward. I see it not just in young people, but in all our people.

And in Barack Obama, I see not just the audacity, but the possibility of hope for the America that is yet to be.

What counts in our leadership is not the length of years in Washington, but the reach of our vision, the strength of our beliefs, and that rare quality of mind and spirit that can call forth the best in our country and our people.

With Barack Obama, we will turn the page on the old politics of misrepresentation and distortion.

With Barack Obama, we will close the book on the old politics of race against race, gender against gender, ethnic group against ethnic group, and straight against gay.

With Barack Obama, we will close the door on the old economics that has written off the poor and left the middle class poorer and less secure.

He offers a strategy for prosperity—so that America will once again lead the world in better standards of life.

With Barack Obama, we will break the old gridlock and finally make health care what it should be in America—a fundamental right for all, not just an expensive privilege for the few.

We will make the United States the great leader and not the great roadblock in the fateful fight against global warming.

And with Barack Obama, we will end a war in Iraq that he has always stood against, that has cost us the lives of thousands of our sons and daughters, and that America never should have fought.

I have seen him in the Senate. He will keep us strong and defend the nation against real threats of terrorism and proliferation.

So let us reject the counsels of doubt and calculation.

Let us remember that when Franklin Roosevelt envisioned Social Security, he didn’t decide—no, it was too ambitious, too big a dream, too hard.

When John Kennedy thought of going to the moon, he didn’t say no, it was too far, maybe we couldn’t get there and shouldn’t even try.

I am convinced we can reach our goals only if we are “not petty when our cause is so great”-- only if we find a way past the stale ideas and stalemate of our times – only if we replace the politics of fear with the politics of hope – and only if we have the courage to choose change.

Barack Obama is the one person running for President who can bring us that change.

Barack Obama is the one person running for President who can be that change.

I love this country. I believe in the bright light of hope and possibility. I always have, even in the darkest hours. I know what America can achieve. I’ve seen it. I’ve lived it—and with Barack Obama, we can do it again.

I know that he’s ready to be President on day one. And when he raises his hand on Inauguration Day, at that very moment, we will lift the spirits of our nation and begin to restore America’s standing in the world.

There was another time, when another young candidate was running for President and challenging America to cross a New Frontier. He faced public criticism from the preceding Democratic President, who was widely respected in the party. Harry Truman said we needed “someone with greater experience”—and added: “May I urge you to be patient.” And John Kennedy replied: “The world is changing. The old ways will not do…It is time for a new generation of leadership.”

So it is with Barack Obama. He has lit a spark of hope amid the fierce urgency of now.

I believe that a wave of change is moving across America. If we do not turn aside, if we dare to set our course for the shores of hope, we together will go beyond the divisions of the past and find our place to build the America of the future.

My friends, I ask you to join in this historic journey -- to have the courage to choose change.

It is time again for a new generation of leadership.

It is time now for Barack Obama.

I hope this helps answers D.E.II's question regarding which candidate progressives should support.

"Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful committed citizens can change the world. Indeed, it is the only thing that ever has."
— Margaret Mead

Seth

I guess Axelrod paid attention to the mayor's race after all

Who knew! I thought he'd totally checked out!

The guy has good taste, I guess. He even copied the rising sun emblem. I guess he had to go back and figure out why he'd lost that one!
Hope, as I wrote last year, is radioactive. So radioactive, in fact, that it now threatens to overwhelm little Miss Tsunami, and now I am in the very awkward position of trying to write something better for Hillary, because those people she is paying aren't doing their job.

I know Hill said she "found her voice" in New Hampshire. But she sure ain't singing now. Senator Obama is. If Michael Nutter's song is "Rapper's Delight" then Hillary sounds these days like the rather mournful "Landslide."

You know:

Well, Ive been afraid of changing
cause Ive built my life around you
But time makes you bolder
Children get older
Im getting older too

Not that I don't love Fleetwood Mac. But she needs a new song.

Hannah

p.s. And one last thing for the Nutter operatives please. "Rapper's Delight" - okay in the car - at an inaugural party in front of cheering boozy people - NOT COOL in a Regis and Kathy Lee style chair/interview setup on Comcast Sportnet!!!! Please!!!

p.p.s.

Annette John Hall did point out that we were ahead of the curve on this one. Mayor Nutter did use the RFK "ripples" quote in his inaugural address (except that ripples from Philly apparently don't dissipate, they grow stronger!). Sam Durso pointed out that Senator Obama was, well, a reformer in the IL state legislature. I know we are all sick to death of that word now, but sometimes it just means someone who stands up for what is right.

What I am saying is...and I know a lot of Hillaryistas feel this way...Senator Barack Obama is a pretty goddamn amazing candidate too. It takes a really special person to run the hope campaign.

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
Syndicate content