Clinton's Chances Jeopardized After S.C.

The New Republic: Obama's S.C. Win Gained Him Credibility Among Blacks

(The New Republic)  This column was written by John B. Judis

---

It would have been fine, of course, for a political scientist or a journalist to make the observation that Hillary Clinton stood little chance in the South Carolina Democratic primary running against a black candidate. And it would have raised no eyebrows if he or she drew comparisons between Barack Obama's win and Jesse Jackson's 1988 victory. But Bill Clinton is a master politician who calibrates the exact effect of his words upon an audience. And as Clinton well knew, linking an opponent to Jackson, as former North Carolina Sen. Jesse Helms used to do regularly in his campaigns, is a surefire way to stir some white voters up against him.

The ostensible purpose of Clinton's doing so was not to win South Carolina, although the Clinton campaign expected to do much better with the state's African Americans than they did. It would have been to send a signal to white and Latino voters in future primaries that Obama, like Jackson, was a "black candidate." After the election, the campaign circulated a blog post on The Left Coaster noting that Obama had "actually underperformed on the white vote (significantly) ... in South Carolina compared to Nevada." The message of this post seemed to be that as a result of his reliance on black voters in South Carolina, Obama would continue to underperform among whites.

This analysis is questionable. Nevada's whites voted in a caucus, not a primary. They were likely to be more liberal than their South Carolina counterparts and to belong to unions. But the general point could be correct. By painting Obama as the black candidate, Hillary Clinton might have lost the African-American vote but won the nomination. On February 5, it will be important to look at the Latino vote in California, New Mexico, Arizona, New York, and New Jersey, and the white vote in states like Tennessee, Arkansas, and Missouri, where Obama's overwhelming support among blacks may not be sufficient to carry the state.

There are, of course, moral drawbacks to this strategy, but there are also political drawbacks that could appear not just in the primaries, but also in the general election. In the primaries, the Clinton campaign's resort to the race card - however fleeting - coupled with Obama's victory, should lead to increased black turnout and support for Obama in the coming primaries. Many of these primaries take place in states with significant African American populations. In the 2004 Democratic primaries, for instance, blacks comprised 47 percent of Georgia voters, 35 percent of voters in Maryland, 23 percent in Tennessee, 21 percent in Texas, 33 percent in Virginia, 20 percent in New York, 15 percent in Missouri, 14 percent in Ohio, and 8 percent in California.

It's fair to assume that black turnout will increase over 2004, and at a rate higher than white or Latino turnout. In South Carolina this year, black turnout went from 47 percent to 55 percent of the electorate -- a 17 percent increase. At that rate, black turnout could make up over 50 percent in Georgia, over 40 percent in Maryland, and almost 25 percent of the electorate in New York. If Obama wins 80 percent of the black vote, as he did in South Carolina, then Clinton could have difficulty winning primaries in these states.

That's certainly true in Georgia (a February 5 primary state), and in Virginia (February 12). Using South Carolina as a guide, blacks in Georgia can be expected to make up about 55 percent of the primary electorate. If Obama wins 80 percent of this vote, he'll need to win less than 15 percent of the white and Hispanic vote to carry the state. That may be why the Clinton campaign has been running few ads there.

But let's take what would seem a more difficult example: Missouri. If the South Carolina pattern holds, blacks would comprise about 18 percent of the primary electorate on February 5. If Obama gets 80 percent of that vote, he'll have to win 43 percent of the white vote to carry the state. In New Hampshire, which Obama lost, he still won 36 percent of the white vote. If he can add to that total a third of the vote that would have gone to John Edwards, he'll carry Missouri.

Secondly, Obama could be aided by what I'll call the Wilder effect. There is a growing group of white, college-educated voters who grew up in the shadow of the civil rights revolution. They consider themselves free of racial prejudice and will condemn those whom they believe to be prejudiced. At their state convention in 1985, Virginia Democrats nominated African American state legislator Doug Wilder as the candidate for lieutenant governor. Many of the state's politicians thought Wilder would lose and even doom the fate of the gubernatorial candidate. Wilder, like Obama, ran a campaign that tried to transcend race, but his Republican opponents played the race card, attacking him for having introduced a resolution 15 years before against the state's official song, "Carry me back to Ole Virginia." The song celebrates plantation life and even includes a reference to "darkies."

The Republican tactic backfired. Immediately after the attacks, Wilder picked up support in the northern Virginia suburbs, which were populated by upscale college-educated whites who had favored moderate Republicans in the past. The pollster for Wilder's rival later acknowledged that the ploy cost his candidate four to six percentage points among suburban voters in Northern Virginia and the Tidewater. Wilder proceeded to win the election.

Of course, a single incident doesn't demonstrate a trend, but these same voters - who helped elect Senator Jim Webb in November 2006 against George "Macaca" Allen - have evolved nationally into a major source of Democratic support. (Many of them regard themselves as "independents," but regularly vote Democratic.) Playing the race card won't sit well with these voters, who will play an important role in states like California, Pennsylvania, Virginia, and Maryland. And many of them are the college-educated women who were so important to Clinton's majority in New Hampshire.

Finally, suppose that Clinton does win the nomination after an acrimonious primary battle. Will there be repercussions in the fall? In recalling that Jackson had won the 1988 South Carolina caucus, Bill Clinton could have drawn a much different conclusion. In 1988, Jackson surprised many Democrats not only by winning states in the Deep South, but by winning the Michigan caucus in March by nearly two-to-one over Massachusetts Governor Michael Dukakis. That set up a showdown in New York the next month pitting Jackson against Dukakis and Senator Al Gore, who enjoyed the endorsement of New York Mayor Ed Koch. Koch, who campaigned with Gore, opened up old wounds by suggesting that Jackson was anti-Semitic. "Jews would have to be crazy to vote for Jackson," Koch declared. Koch and the New York primary put race at the center of the primary campaign.

Jackson lost the state, and failed to win another primary except for Washington, D.C. But the manner of his defeat in New York created a lasting bitterness that--not without Jackson's contrivance - carried over to the fall. In the 1988 election, black turnout declined from 55.8 percent in 1984 to 51.5 percent. That didn't cost Dukakis the election; his singularly inept campaign took care of that. But if Dukakis had run a better campaign overall, the lagging turnout among blacks could have cost him electoral votes in states like Maryland, Pennsylvania, and Illinois that Bill Clinton would win four years hence. In the case of a photo-finish election like we've had in 2000 and 2004, a drop in black turnout could easily cost Democrats the win. Even if playing the race card gets Clinton the nomination, it could still cost her the presidency.

Leaving the moral question aside, the fact is that Clinton blundered disastrously in South Carolina. Once Obama had won Iowa and established himself as a credible candidate, his standing among black voters shot upwards, and it became extremely likely that he would win the South Carolina primary. Clinton could have run a decent, above-the-fray campaign in South Carolina that maintained her popularity among African American voters. She would have lost the overall vote by less, and would still have benefited among some whites and Latinos from Obama's visible reliance on black voters to ensure his victory. Instead, she jeopardized both her reputation and her chance of becoming president.

[akona2]

O-bama%u2026 Osama, the king of ALQAEDA,
B-arack%u2026 IRAQ, the hometown of HUSSEIN, barack%u2019s middlename,
A-llah%u2019s sign, what could this mean?
M-uslim blood into barracks vein.
A-RE WE READY FOR THE NEXT MUSLIM PRESIDENT?

barack HUSSEIN OBAMA. can not trust the name...

DO NOT FORGET 911! MUSLIM TERRORIST infiltrated america by being one of them.

[bodge62]

Obama''s most effective criticisms of Clinton, she voted for authorising the war, he opposed it from the start but (and this is crucially important) he had consistently opposed the war ever since. This story of consistent opposition over years was a "fairytale" the media had bought into.Obama has managed to persuade the media that this was a lie that he would correct. He hasn''t corrected it, because he can''t. He has not been consistent in the terms he set himself.
Obama supported Kerry for president, Kerry voted for war and continued to justify his support. Obama said that he did not want to cause Kerry embarrassment so he said that he, Obama, did not know how he would have voted. Isn''t this the candidate who''s about change, whose whole candidacy is based on a "different kind of politics"? Isn''t this the candidate who says the country can no longer tolerate political spin, that lying in the name of political advantage is what''s destroying the country? Yet on the very issue he identifies as the biggest moral issue facing America Obama effectively states that he was lying for political advantage.
Obama''s calls for hope, for change. but hope to do what, to change to what? He hasn''t said yet. He doesn''t seem to know. He says that one of the high qualities of leadership is the ability to inspire by words, and he is right. It''s a rare ability. But inspire to what end? It''s a pity. He promised so much.

[bodge62]

OBAMA LOOSES JOBS FOR LATINIOS!
**Ms. Obama, vice-president at the Univ Chicago Hosp, a hospital that charges uninsured minorities 5.4 times as much for drugs isn%u2019t enough cold hearted corp experience. Plus she caused hundreds to loose their 11.hr jobs she said to be more efficient. 05, she was elected to the BOD Westchester-based TreeHouse Foods, for that, she received $12,000 and $33,000 from a subsidiary, in Nov announced closing its La Junta, Colo. plant, that claimed the jobs of 153 workers, most of them Hispanic, big blow to a rural town with only 9,500 residents. The jobs paid a starting wage of $11 an hour, good pay for the area. Companies that pay top execs like MICHELLE OBAMA tens of millions a year while squeezing the little guys off the production line destroying middle-class America. Also raises the question not about corporate values but about Mr. Obama''s own values. Specifically, while Obama bashes Wal-Mart, why does his wife, Michelle, make $45,000 a year serving on the board of Chicago company that pays executives a very hefty amount of money while laying off mostly minority workers in economically deprived areas? The companys No. 1 customer is Wal-Mart???

[jon2012-2009]

When answering CBS Katie Couric''''s question: Harry Truman once said, "A man not honorable in his marital relations is not usually honorable in any other", Hillary thinks having no moral has nothing to do with Bill as a president. So between Truman and Hillary, who is telling America''''s children the truth?
Allowing Hillary and Bill back into the White House means RUIN TO EDUCATION.
Posted by user168 at 05:57 PM : Feb 01, 2008

I wouldn''t trust a sentiment expressed by Harry Truman about the implications of marital infidelity upon the sum total of a person''s character being of much value today. Find something more current.

The leap in logic from Bill''s lack of moral compass to its deleterious influence on the education of children is a little much but understandable. The affair should not have played out on in public the way it did because it was a essentially private act. The risk he took was that of destroying his family, not the nation, and most certainly not his presidency or its legacy.

[jon2012-2009]

It''''s "Mein Kampf",moron.One of Hills'''' favorite books.
Posted by lexluthor5 at 07:49 AM : Feb 02, 2008

Says who?

[formrusmcsgt]

"On February 5, it will be important to look at the Latino vote in California, New Mexico, Arizona, New York, and New Jersey..."

I am bilingual and have been watching some Hispanic channels and their commentary on the upcoming election.

Most of what I see is "we voted Repub in the last two elections and got absolutely nothing in return".

We''ll see how that impression plays out.

[mcvet]

Folks I have been following these fascist for a long long time and NEVER have I seen them MORE scared of a political canidate than they are of Hillary Clinton. They have used about every trick in Mein Kamp... every trick employed by McCarthy and they are STILL as scared as any Nazi''s on earth. Now anyone who can do that can''t be bad. Sieg Heil Bush!

[andersenme]

Robert F. Kennedy once remarked:

"All of us, from the wealthiest and most powerful of men to the weakest and hungriest of children, share one precious possession: the name %u2018American.%u2019 It is not easy to know what that means. But in part to be an American means to have been an outcast and a stranger, to have come to the exiles'' country, and to know that he who denies the outcast and stranger among us at that moment also denies America."

During the debate Thursday night, Barack Obama echoed RFK when he said, to applause, that arguments about how the inner-city unemployment of blacks is related to the influx of immigration is a case of "scapegoating" immigrants.

Hillary, fresh from her campaign of racial coding in South Carolina, countered by claiming--against all evidence--that voters needed to realize that immigrants do take the jobs of low-income Americans.

America is tired of the arrogance, corruption and lack of that elusive thing called grace that characterized Bill Clinton''s "co-presidency" with Hillary.

Clean slate !!!
Barack Obama,
''08 !!!

Martin Edwin Andersen

[paris1969]

I think Florida jeopardizes Obama''s chances ... why does the Media ignore the fact that Hillary Clinton got more votes in Florida than Obama and Edwards together?

[quatrops]

I get mixed messages from brandalyn08 @ 2:10. The writer identifies as black and insists "we are not a homogeneous group", then complains that when black voters went 81% for Obama in SC and he then said the campaign "was not about race", "WE FELT THE SNUB".

"WE" felt the snub ? ? ? Who is the "we", brandalyn, if not the black voters you claim are not homogeneous? If you are not homogeneous, why do you want praise and credit for voting as a group?

Further, you state "Any time you get 81% vote from one ethnic group and less than 25% in any other, YOUR CAMPAIGN was about race. Are you suggesting that 81% only voted for Obama because he supposedly played the race card? The 81% was Obama''s "fault"? He should apologize? Black voters can''t think independently?

I think your "We felt the snub" is, in itself, a snub against black voters, portraying them as knee-jerk reactors just because Obama quoted Dr. King (on or about the MLK national holiday as I recall). It seems to me it is YOU, not the article''s writer, who is suggesting African Americans are a voting bloc, and, as you say, "there is a fundamental flaw in this argument".

[wogerwabbit]

I don''t care if Porky Pig won as predident, as long as he''s a Democrat. That''s all folks! ;)

[idlepugilist]

Obama made sure recently that people in his home state knew he had white grandparents, but I''m sure he''s not playing any sort of race game, right? He''s smart and an eloquent speaker. He does remind me of a Georgia governor who eeked into the White House in ''76 because people didn''t know he was inexperienced at how to play the game with other powerful politicians, and he alienated himself. Then there''s the coke use. We''ve had enough of a President who admittedly toyed with alcohol too much, and that type of personality isn''t best suited for the top job, as the last 7 years prove. McCain and Clinton, though not as extreme as some in their parties wish they would be, are the candidates best suited for nomination.

[user168-2009]

Every intended wrong doing, harm, or crime starts with a moral problem. Our country''s future depends on the moral courage of our youth and whom they look up to as role model. When answering CBS Katie Couric''s question: Harry Truman once said, "A man not honorable in his marital relations is not usually honorable in any other", Hillary thinks having no moral has nothing to do with Bill as a president. So between Truman and Hillary, who is telling America''s children the truth?

%u201CWithout truth I know not how man can live.%u201D

Allowing Hillary and Bill back into the White House means RUIN TO EDUCATION.

%u201CKnowledge becomes evil if the aim be not virtuous.%u201D

%u201COne atom of the plane where He functions would shatter the world.%u201D

[rowdytexan2]

Didn''t seem to me that the South Carolina vote made a da/mn difference to Florida, nor Ted Kennedy''s endorsement. I don''t care what the media hypes up. Votes count, opinions and the media whining because their polls are wrong, doesn''t!

[irliberal]

I find the comment by exCoachKent offensive. Posted by js19691 at 04:42 PM

Well ok Jesse Jackson... I thought you were busy elsewhere today?

[js19691]

I find the comment by exCoachKent offensive. Obama has been more straightforward with his actual plans than any other candidate. (See Link Below). It''s much better than Clinton''s stance of not speaking about any specific plans. Also, he did explain his drug use in his book several years ago. Unlike Bill Clinton who "never inhaled". Also, I agree that black people are individuals and not simply a block of unanimous support, however, I think it''s extremely difficult to argue that Bill and Hill are not pulling the race card. Saying that Jesse Jackson won S. Carolina in 84, 88 in order to undermine his victory? Blaming him personally for any criticism they receive from any black person?

http://www.barackobama.com/issues/

[irliberal]

Obama''s a good guy, but my vote is with Hillary. He''s just too new, too unknown, to be the choice when Hillary is his competitor. Good luck to both though - I think they''re both great choices, I just think Hillary is a little better. 8-)

[excoachken]

we do NOT know enough about Obama to give him the nomination. This IS NOT an affirmative action quota appointment. It should be earned by a proven track record, not by celebrity endorsements and Pep Rally crowds. He should explain, in detail his real estate transaction for his house and his drug use history.

[mistered9]

As I said before. it''s your tale, I''m sitting on mine.
If voters would engage their brains, they would realize what they have here. A winning candidate in 2008 and one ready for 2016. That way the teen that are fatuated with Obama will have someone to vote for, when he has eight years of experience.

[destardi]

Brandalyn08 thanks for that post...I completely agree, and I detest that the media has twisted the Clintons'' comments into a racial situation, which Obama then propagated/whispered into the collective conscience:

http://mediamatters.org/items/200801130004

Voting for the underdawg!