Sen. John Edwards set to quit Presidential Run (Breaking News)

That poll was taken before the mess in SC. I'd like to see it now.

 

Again,...I can't help, but believe this was a devised strategy of the Clintons...Make it about Obama, Edwards gets marginalized...when Edwards quits...The white vote will be maximized...

Major, who is a really intelligent poster and difficult to debate with agreed with me on this...I admire the Clintons for being so cunning, and tactical,...and if I didn't lean so gosh dern right,...I'd feel sympathy for Obama.

Obama never made it about race and was running a campaign with better moral standing,...but we all know politics is cut throat, and if you ain't "in it to win it" by all means, then you may not get the prize you set as a goal...

I wish the game of politics wasn't this way....But it is...we need to follow and deal with it...

 

his wife challeneged SC voters in November to vote for Obama because only a black man could help and understand black people. This was before any of the MLK stuff came in.

 

O...I didn't realize that.

 

That's not what his wife said. She never said only a black man could do that.

 

All this talk about the white vote, would have more validity if people are voting along color. With Obama that isn't the case. He won in Iowa with a 94% white population, and nearly won in NH with it's white population being above 95%.

He did better than expected with whites in the southern state of South Carolina.

I don't think the white vote is as muck of a lock step vote as many people are making it out to be.

 

Maybe not as much as some are making it out to be,...But I will disagree with you that there is not ample significance...Did you see the link on my prior thread?...

The Democrats' Southern Strategy
By Jacob Laksin
FrontPageMagazine.com | Monday, January 28, 2008

Pay no attention to the exit polls. That seemed to be the furtive message of the Obama campaign, following its Saturday night landslide victory in the South Carolina primary. As the dapper Obama was delivering the high-minded rhetoric that has become a stump staple – and as his supporters defiantly proclaimed that “Race doesn't matter!” – the cold data told a less wholesome story.

Behind Obama’s 55 percent to 27 percent drubbing of Hillary Clinton were some telling figures. Most notably, Obama overwhelmingly drew his support from blacks, who made up approximately half of the Democratic electorate in the state. Black women, seemingly immune to Clinton’s appeals for feminist solidarity, went for Obama by a solid margin of 4-to-1. Race does matter, it turns out.

As much was cannily forecast by Bill Clinton. Savoring his current role as the lead attack dog of his wife’s campaign, the ex-president shrewdly handicapped the result when he charged, in the days before the primary, that the Obama campaign was getting votes largely “because of their race or gender.” Translation: A white woman like Hillary “doesn't have a chance of winning here.”

That she didn’t win doesn’t necessarily vindicate Clinton’s assessment. Nor does it prove that the Clintons’ decidedly divisive tactics during the past week – among which were laughable allegations that the prosaically liberal Obama was a closet Republican – were solely to blame for the racially polarized result. After all, the results by race were similarly lopsided in Nevada, where Obama previously won some 80 percent of the black vote.

Nonetheless, Clinton’s loss casts into sharp relief the plain fact that the Democratic race has become stratified along racial lines, with blacks siding with Obama and whites and Hispanics favoring Clinton. Indeed, polls conducted just prior to Saturday’s primary showed that the cresting support for Obama among black voters was matched by a drop-off in support among whites.

This racial dynamic is not without irony. In past election cycles, Democrats and their surrogates have gleefully and promiscuously indicted Republicans for exercising a “Southern strategy” to divide voters by race. Now they must cope with the uncomfortable reality that the ugly forces they have attributed to their opponents are prominently at play in their own nomination process.

To be sure, those seeking to understand the phenomenon would do well to avoid the popular media. The Washington Post, in its summary of the South Carolina results, insisted that Obama won on the strength of “a biracial coalition,” a conclusion scarcely supported by the numbers, even if one takes into account that he took 25 percent of the white vote. CNN, in a headline more hopeful than accurate, declared, “Voters not swayed by racial politics.” It’s enough to make one reflect with sympathy on President Clinton’s complaint that the Obama campaign has been living a “fairy tale” created by sanitized press coverage.

What then can one learn from the dissolution of the Democratic race into squabbling identity politics? At least one prevalent conclusion – that the Clinton campaign is now in “crisis” and must moderate its strategy to win – appears off the mark. Strong though Obama’s performance was in South Carolina, it is unlikely to be replicated elsewhere.On the contrary, all evidence points to turbulence ahead for his campaign.

One obvious concern is that, with larger numbers of Hispanics and smaller numbers of blacks, upcoming states are markedly different in their racial composition from South Carolina. California, with its rich reward of 440 delegates, is a case in point. Just seven percent black, the state has a growing Hispanic population – 35 percent of the state is Hispanic – that favors Clinton by a 3-1 margin. Factor in the open animosity between blacks and Hispanics, itself the byproduct of mass immigration and economic competition, and the state increasingly looks like hostile territory for Obama, a fact reflected in the nearly 20 point lead that, according to Realclearpolitics.com, Clinton enjoys in the state. Key battleground states like New Mexico and Arizona are shaping up along similar plotlines, and Clinton has stable leads in “home” states like New York and New Jersey.

A compelling case could be made the Clintons are substantially responsible for the racial tensions roiling their party. But if the ultimate goal is to win, it’s difficult to see the flaw in their campaign strategy.

Not so in the case of John Edwards. It was just four years ago that the South Carolina-born Edwards triumphed in the state’s primary. This time around, he has utterly failed to gain traction, running a malevolent, quasi-Marxist campaign that every day threatens to set the bar for populist cynicism and demagogic excess. Edwards may prattle on glibly about giving “voice to millions of Americans who have absolutely no voice in this democracy,” but his dismal last-place finish on Saturday is only the latest sign that his campaign has passed its political sell-by date.

Popular wisdom holds that 2008 is destined to be a Democratic year. But it’s hard to believe that the divisive nomination battle will leave the party untarnished come the general election. For the eventual nominee, alienating whole swaths of the electorate might prove just enough to win the Democratic crown – and just enough to turn off the rest of the country.

 

Why is Edwards...talking...the...way...he...is...?

hell, I'm watch CNN, and I don't know if his speech style is...to..get...the...common...folks...to understand him, but this is ridiculous....

 

I saw those numbers and have been wondering how accurate they are today.

I'm very disappointed that Edwards has dropped out. He provided a third voice in the Democratic campaign that was very needed, in my opinion. I voted for the guy in the Texas primary last go-round, and might have this time, as well. I really thought he would stick it out, hoping for a brokered convention. He must have looked at the numbers, especially the financial numbers, and saw something that didn't add up. Now we're left with Ms. Clinton and Mr. Obama, for better or for worse. After Florida, the real topic (besides which Democrat gets the nod) should be... who can beat McCain? I think either one could, but McCain is the toughest matchup for both.



Impeach Bush.

 

Bingo. I was about to post the same myself.
The whole white vote vs. black vote was never an issue until SC. Look at Obama's win in Iowa and the near win in NH.

Now take into account that Obama pulled even with Hillary with the white vote in Florida, and that the latest Ramussen poll has him pulling even with Hillary in Conneticut...

Obama appeals to a broad audience. There may be reasons why the Edwards voters will go to Hillary instead of Obama, but it won't be a clear cut race vote.

If Edwards supporters have as much animosity towards Hillary as Edwards himself did, then their support goes to Obama. Issues of economy, "change", etc, will all have play here.

 

Everyone... wave...bye...bye...

 

Maybe John and Rudy can go have a beer and a laugh together tonight.

 

I think it's a much easier to connect this with "racial politics" than anything that Bill or Hillary ever said.


http://www.mcclatchydc.com/227/story/21909.html

 

I didn't hear about it either till last week actually. I'm surprised that Obama never got grilled on this. Shows you just exactly which side the media is on.

 

yes, much easier than say, comparing obama to jesse jackson, as far as that quote is concerned, she was speaking to an audience of black women, who are concerned about the state of black males in this country.

just like that email put out by the group who is concerned about the state of asian government workers and asians getting federal judge positions.

when speaking in front of particular audiences you address their concerns.

 

what is their to grill him about?

 

balla how is that any differnet than McCain saying that he's the best president during wartime because he's the only one who's fought in war and was a war hero?

And really

You think Michele Obama has as much pull with the national media than Bill Clinton? That's why you didn't hear about it.

 

so it's ok for Obama's wife to say vote for Obama because we're a black family and therefore we can help you much better than the white candidates? but Hillary's husband says something about a fairy tale and he gets accussed of supressing the black vote???

 

it isn't, but do you really think it's fair to say that the Clintons started the racial politics? and is it really genuine for Obama to say that it isn't about race when his wife is teling black people to vote for him because he's black?

 

she never said that, that's the other person being quoted in the article.