Home
Archive
Columnists
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Register to Vote: Rock the Vote, powered by Working Assets Wireless
Advertisement
  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

Election 2008

Barack Obama Buries Hillary Clinton in South Carolina

By Steven Rosenfeld, AlterNet. Posted January 26, 2008.


Obama pledges to take campaign of national unity and new leadership to 22 states that vote on February fifth.
Advertisement

Sen. Barack Obama decisively won South Carolina's Democratic Primary Saturday, where his grassroots, upstart campaign with its defiant message of change and new leadership defeated a formidable new political machine assembled by Sen. Hillary Clinton, D-NY, her husband the former president, and administration veterans.

As Obama stayed to celebrate a victory that creates new momentum for a nationwide campaign, Hillary Clinton left for Tennessee and Bill Clinton headed to Missouri.

"After four great contests in every corner of this country, we have the most votes, we have the most delegates, and the most diverse coalition of Americans that we have seen in a long, long time," Obama said to thunderous cheers in the convention center in South Carolina's capital city, Columbia. "In nine short days, nearly half the nation will have the chance to join us in saying we are tied of business as usual, we are hungry for change and we are ready to believe again."

"We are looking for more than a change of the party in the White House," Obama said. "We are looking to fundamentally change the status quo in Washington. It is a status quo that that is bigger than any one party. And they are fighting back with everything they have got."

Obama promised to take his message to the entire country in coming days.

"Yes we can heal this nation," he said, speaking in a preacher-like cadence. "Yes we can seize our future. And as we leave this great state with a new wind in our backs, in a county we love ... We will take the same message we had when we were up and when we were down: When we are many, we are one."

A Decisive Victory

Obama received 55.4 percent of the vote in a record turnout of 532,000 voters. Four years ago, 290,000 South Carolinians voted in the Democratic Primary. On Saturday, Clinton received 26.5 percent -- less than half Obama's vote -- and former Sen. John Edwards, received 17.6 percent of the vote. Obama won all but two South Carolina counties.

"I have called Sen. Obama to congratulate him and wish him well," Clinton said in a prepared statement where she thanked "the people of South Carolina" who welcomed her into their homes and voted for her. "We now turn our attention to the millions of Americans who will make their voices heard in Florida and the 22 states as well as American Samoa who will vote on February 5th."

Clinton's remarks suggest she will make an effort to contest Florida, whose primary is next Tuesday but which has been sanctioned by the Democratic Party for moving its vote ahead of Feb. 5. The state will not be able to award delegates, under the party's rules, but a win there would generate tremendous press as 22 states prepare to vote a week later.

A Hard-Fought Victory

South Carolina was not taken for granted by Obama's campaign, even though pollsters and pundits have noted that nearly half of the state's Democratic Party voters are African-American and are prone to see his candidacy as an issue of racial pride. They frequently noted that Rev. Jesse Jackson, Jr. won the state's Democratic primary in 1984 and 1988.

On Saturday, 15,000 Obama volunteers fanned out across the state to hold signs on street, get voters to polls, monitor the voting process and guard against voter suppression tactics or technical problems with the state's paperless electronic voting machines, said David Axelrod, the campaign manager, meeting with reporters. And as hundreds of volunteers crowded into Columbia's convention center and watched overhead screens with news reports attributing the win to the southern state with the second highest number of African-American Democratic voters -- Georgia is first -- the crowd shouted in unison, "Race doesn't matter. Race doesn't matter. Race doesn't matter."

Axelrod said the voters who have supported Obama in Iowa, where he won the state's caucuses, New Hampshire, Nevada and South Carolina cut across racial and political dividing lines. "There is an appetite for change in this country," he said. "It is in red states and blue states. It is among independents and Republicans."

Obama's primary win appeared to heed lessons from New Hampshire, where the Illinois senator lost in the nation's first primary to Clinton by 7,481 votes. In New Hampshire, his state campaign was not as well-organized as Clinton's campaign, which took advantage of a winter thaw to send swarms of supporters into the streets with campaign signs. In contrast, Obama's campaign focused on reaching voters by phone and door knocking.


Digg!

See more stories tagged with: obama, clinton, south caronlina, election08

Steven Rosenfeld is a senior fellow at Alternet.org and co-author of "What Happened in Ohio: A Documentary Record of Theft and Fraud in the 2004 Election," with Bob Fitrakis and Harvey Wasserman (The New Press, 2006).

Liked this story? Get top stories in your inbox each week from Election 2008! Sign up now »


Advertisement

 

Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
The most encouraging thing about this election in SC:
Posted by: thoughtcriminal on Jan 26, 2008 8:46 PM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
More than 500,000 votes were cast today in this Democratic primary...

That is higher than the 450,000 who voted last Saturday in the GOP South Carolina primary. And the turnout today is up by 75% compared to the Democratic primary turnout in 2004... That primary turnout was 290,000.


This is very bad news for the Republicans, who can be counted on to renew their voter suppression efforts, as well as to try and run a "lefty-greeny" third party candidate in the general election in order to split the Democratic vote - wonder who they have in mind for that role?

Regardless, that kind of turnout is really good news, and should give a lot of hope to everyone who wants to see the thugs kicked out of the executive branch. However, the momentum needs to be built on - and the corporate media needs to be placed in the hot seat.

What we've seen in the past few weeks from the corporate press is indeed shameful - blatant attemps at race-baiting, efforts to create controversies where none exist, all targeted at Democratic candidates, with kid gloves for the Republicans. Let them know that the public is on to their game, and demand that they halt their spin attempts.

For example, the Associated Press is trying to play up the "Black Vs. White" theme in the S.C. victory: Strong Black Vote Gives Obama SC Win - as if race was the only issue involved.

What does that have to do with the Republicans? Well, the Associated Press has a board of directors, and their CEO and Chairman is a fellow named William Dean Singleton.

He also controls the MediaGroup conglomerate, which owns some 1500 newspapers all across the Western U.S.

"MediaNews Group CEO William Dean Singleton, whose holdings include at least three newspapers operating outside the reach of federal antitrust laws under Justice Department-approved joint operating agreements, has contributed thousands of dollars to President Bush's re-election campaign, records show."

The spin and distortion is obvious - and it's only going to get worse.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Posted by: CatDad
Another pandering piece
Posted by: chlamor on Jan 26, 2008 9:03 PM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Anyone who reads this article, and most others in what passes for US mainstream political circles, should study the language of what is being said. (Forget for a moment that nothing much is being said).

The Super Bowl is coming up and one would do well to look at all the pre-game hype, the language within the stories, and compare it with the political hype in supposedly serious political pieces such as this.

Once "The Game" is over look at the post-game reports and compare it with this piece by Mr. Rosenfeld. Look at the language, the rhetorical techniques.

The similarities between hack sports reporting and this piece are harrowing. It's embarrassing.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Another pandering piece Posted by: Lauren
» RE: Another pandering piece Posted by: wwittman
» RE: Another pandering piece Posted by: hagwind
» RE: Another pandering piece Posted by: Billy Blight
This comment has been removed from the site due to non-compliance with AlterNet's community policies.
South Carolina Establishes Obama as Candidate who can Reach White Southerners
Posted by: noir on Jan 26, 2008 10:16 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Contrary to the quickly emerging media spin that alleges that he won solely because voting followed racial lines, the South Carolina statistics suggest that Obama can pull white male voters in the South. The reports are showing that he drew approximately 25% of them--a far better showing than the pre-primary poll forecasts of 10%. Edwards and Clinton each drew about one third, which means that individually they led him in that category by less than double digit figures. In a national election with Obama as the Democrat candidate it is highly unlikely that those who went for Edwards and Hillary would vote Caucasian rather than Democratic. The Obama result confirms what happened in Iowa and New Hampshire--he attracts whites as well as African Americans. His capacity to turn out the latter in record numbers could swing the election to the Democrats even in some Southern states. He can win. Let's not let the media tag him as a racially divisive candidate on the basis of the South Carolina demographic details underlying his victory there. They point the other way.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Well, he presents a new platform.
Posted by: ABetterFuture on Jan 26, 2008 10:46 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
While she is a warrior for the status quo.

People are tired of indefinite wars and an idiotic taxation system, and they vote their interests?

Errrdum...yeah. They do.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

A RACIST VICTORY
Posted by: fjstratford on Jan 26, 2008 11:09 PM   
Current rating: 2    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Why is it when Latinos voted solidly for Clinton in NV the press and Obama implied that it was racist? Why is it that when white women voted for Clinton in NH the press and Obama shouted "Tom Bradley"? I ask because blacks voting along racial lines in SC does not seem to be so bad, according to the media and Obama...

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» lose gracefully Posted by: Nebris
» So what does "racist" mean? Posted by: hagwind
» RE: A RACIST VICTORY Posted by: VZEQICVA
Go Man Go!
Posted by: AndreaN on Jan 26, 2008 11:56 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Gooooooo!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» GObama! Posted by: veggiegrrrl
Politicians are like new cars...
Posted by: carl baydala on Jan 27, 2008 5:47 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
When I vote for a politician or buy a new car I am looking for the same things. They both have to be stylish and they both have to possess things that I am interested in. I like cars that are reasonable priced, well built and easy to maintain.

Politicians, like cars need charisma or styling to be appealing to me. But, they must have other important characteristics as well. A politician must understand the economy and the needs of people generally, and not simply side with moneyed interests or the elite who have a lot to say in how America will be governed.

Barack Obama fails in one key test for me; he is not charismatic. He does not have the appeal of a Kennedy or even an Al Gore. In fact Mitt Romney of the opposition seems more appealing to me, in spite of the fact I would never vote for a Republican even if my life depended upon it.

The other negative for me as regards Mr. Obama is that he doesn't seem anti-war enough, and ditto for Hillary as well. This criticism would be along the lines of something that I am looking for in a car; what is it actually made of and how will it serve me and my interests in the long run? I do not get the impression that Barack Obama wants to end the war or will be vocal enough in its condemnation, for example.

He comes across as weak, as does Hillary Clinton.

Democratic candidates need to stand out against their Republican counterparts and show leadership in areas that matter. No amount of pandering to Israeli interests or corporate entities involved in the war should be tolerated. These are critical issues for me and are at the root of my support for any presidential candidate.

A charismatic candidate should be the epitome of one possessed of leadership skills. Hillary and Obama just do not have what it takes, in my opinion. They are both trying too hard with their message of " change. " Talk is cheap, especially in electoral campaigns.

Candidates like Hillary and Obama need to escape out of the box and become real representatives of the people. They need to condemn the war and criticize the recent stimulus package for what it is - welfare for the downtrodden, and a cosmetic solution to a problem with has deep roots. When Barack Obama starts talking about things that matter and provides examples of that he might just begin to take on the air as one possessing charisma and leadership capabilities.


So, unfortunately for me, Barack is not pretty and I would not buy him. Not only is he not pretty, but he seems to be lacking in the substantive areas as well. I know that there is a pretty candidate out there and possesses things that I want, but unfortunately he is not for sale.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» In that case... Posted by: kepstein7777
Because Blacks cannot be racist
Posted by: Blink on Jan 27, 2008 6:55 AM   
Current rating: 2    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
It is not possible for Blacks to be racist. They do not have the power necessary to be racist. Therefore, even if 99% of the African American population were to vote for Obama and 99% of whites were to vote for Clinton, it is only the whites who are racist, because only whites have enough power to be racist.

This basic truth is what I gather Skoog5600 was getting at, albeit it somewhat indirectly. So, as Skoog says, don't clutter Alternet's comments with plaintive appeals to logic if you're incapable of recognizing higher truths, such as the inability of Blacks to be racist, that defy and trump logic.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Interesting contradiction. Posted by: kepstein7777
The New Bobbie Kennedy?
Posted by: taxidriver on Jan 27, 2008 7:11 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Obama is the only mainstream candidate remaining who can truly unite this country. He is inspiring new people to join the political process. Do we really want four more years of the Clintons? Romney hit home when he said, "Imagine Bill in the White House with nothing to do." Female interns better be screened for their ability to run fast and slap hard. Seriously, Barack is the future; the Clintons are the past. And the Republicans can't wait to run against "Billary" and their colorful past. Progressives need to quit pining for Kucinich and get behind Barack, and, P.S., I do not work for his campaign.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: The New Rush Limbaugh? Posted by: gazooks
Obama, Well, at least much better then McCain and More Republican Wars
Posted by: sofla100 on Jan 27, 2008 7:47 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Well, at least Obama will be much better than a McCain or another war monger. McCain was the one who wanted more USA troops in Iraq, and he is a big supporter of the Pentagon and NATO. We will have increased tension on a military level across much of the world. You can bet also he will be chomping at the bit to go after Iran and protect the Israelis. As for Obama, he will be the status quo, but, that will at least save us from four more years of Republican rule and four more wars.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

"ALL ABOARD!!!"
Posted by: Knowmad on Jan 27, 2008 8:00 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
This is a gift, and if you aware Americans don't take advantage and promote it with everything you've got, you deserve what you'll end up with - and even though she's a she, it won't be pretty. The way the Clinton twins have run their campaign so far is a pretty good indicator of their status quo ideals.

We all know there is no such animal as the perfect candidate/leader. However, it looks very much like Obama is the only game in town with potential; your one chance to make a difference in the sad state of your corpo-political affairs.

For all our sakes, and the planet's, don't blow this opportunity. The pendulum has swung to your advantage for once, but it can too easily return to the dark side unless you control it.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: "ALL ABOARD!!!" Posted by: gazooks
» RE: "ALL ABOARD!!!" Posted by: maxmilagro
Bill was the problem
Posted by: ReallyBearish on Jan 27, 2008 9:30 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Bill Clinton's unwarranted involvement in his wife's campaign may have been a big factor in her defeat. He should bug out and let the chips fall where they may.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

A vote for CHANGE is better than more of the same!
Posted by: williameon on Jan 27, 2008 9:32 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Congratulations!
OBAMA
The people have spoken.
Solidify!
The End of the dictatorial BUSH regime is near.
A new era of Peace and Prosperity will be ushered in,
The tide is changing and
More people are raising their voices everyday.
The ground swell of support for Obama is so overwhelming
It will be impossible for another election to be stolen by the Republicans.
The new age has begun.
A kinder, gentler, friendlier, cooperative, peaceful age.
Let’s finish the work we have started.
VICTORY is in sight!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Obama is not black
Posted by: ot on Jan 27, 2008 9:50 AM   
Current rating: 2    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Obama's father is black and his mother is white. Therefore it is more accurate to refer to him as a mulatto. While this term has fallen into disuse and there will be some (of course) who will shrilly denounce it as offensive, I am hereby officially resurrecting it.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» bi-racial Posted by: veggiegrrrl
» RE: bi-racial Posted by: ot
» How about: human being? Posted by: thoughtcriminal
» RE: Obama is not black Posted by: desidid
hopeful
Posted by: RobNLA on Jan 27, 2008 10:32 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I hope this help Obama gain momentum to win the nomination. Sure I like Edwards more because he has a more progressive campaign. However, I'll vote for Obama if he ends up the nominee. I would never vote for Hillary though, she really is a Republican in Democrat clothing.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Change?
Posted by: chlamor on Jan 27, 2008 11:02 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Obama's campaign has discriminated, blissfully, against blacks in order to achieve a whitewashed media image. Obama compromised on health care -- just Google Obama and Krugman -- and doesn't offer a damn thing in the way of REAL positive policies. He deserves no respect. Edwards, if nothing else, has a) a solid health care plan that could actually change, if not save, the lives of people I know -- and perhaps some you know -- and b) is hostile to NAFTA which has both crushed our economy by funneling money to the investor class AND created the immigration crisis by destroying the Mexican middle class.

Obama and Clinton both stand by NAFTA.

So sell me another. You can talk all you want about how Obama promises CHANGE. But Obama only offers talk, no solutions, no policies. Think about it this way: who would Obama hurt once in office? If you have a political policy that hurts nobody in power, you have nothing, it's garbage. Universal Health Care would hurt insurance companies, opposing NAFTA would hurt the rich. But insurance companies and corporate sponsors are cool with Obama. So what does that tell you?

We need to analyze the ACTIONS of the candidate. If chanting CHANGE is a free pass, then everyone on this board who supports Obama is fine with the career of just about every Presidential candidate over the last thirty years right?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Change? Posted by: badkitty
Obama Needs to Come Out As Bi-Racial!
Posted by: ot on Jan 27, 2008 12:22 PM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Race will continue to be a factor in this presidential election campaign as long as the media and the general public continue to refer to Barack Obama as "black". That, my dear liberal friends, is what is perpetuating the racial overtones of this campaign.

Labeling Obama, who is of mixed black and white parentage, as "black" is implicitly racist. This is because the nomenclature labels a person in terms of the "inferior" or "lesser" race. In other words, one is white only if both parents are white, otherwise a person is black or Indian, etc. And labeling Obama as "black" is also demeaning to whites as well, for it obfuscates the contribution to who he is of this part of his heritage. So, Obama is neither "black" nor "white". He is both, i.e. bi-racial.

But we cannot look to the media or the general public to be the catalysts for this change. Rather, the only person in a position to do this effectively is Obama himself. Therefore, I believe Obama should take the bull by the horns and make a loud and clear public statement to the American people that he is not "black" but rather bi-racial. Not only will this propel him into the lead as a candidate who stands for integrity, honest use of language and who can confront racial issues head on, it will also have the political effect of stopping efforts by various parties to exploit racial divisions and to make this a racially charged campaign. Lastly, I believe it will create a level playing field of voters in that it will drastically reduce the numbers of people who will either vote for or against him only because he is "black".

Sadly, I also believe that if this is not done, race will be the deciding factor and Obama will lose the Democratic nomination because of it.

So, America, do we want a real color-blind campaign or do we want business as usual where we try to convince ourselves in feel-good 'liberalese' that race really isn't a factor?

Barack are you listening?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» He already did . . . Posted by: Scientz
a Martian with polka dots
Posted by: zooeyhall on Jan 27, 2008 12:55 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
As a white middle class voter in Nebraska, I just want to say that for myself--and for most of the people I know---that the much-ballyhooed "race" thing is definitely secondary.

All I want is a candidate who will face head-on the issues that affect me directly:

job security and real economic opportunity

health care

economic inequality in America

As long as one of the candidates would firmly and definitely address the above three things I would vote for him. And I don't care if he/she is black, white, or a polka-dotted Martian.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: a Martian with polka dots Posted by: johnclark
he prays on our hopes and dreams
Posted by: Missing Piece on Jan 27, 2008 5:43 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
instead of our fear and hatred. Which is better? Well, hopes and dreams unite us, fear and hatred divide us. So is obama going to save us from corporate greed? I doubt it, but if he nominates kucinich as his V.P. then all definately vote for him.

Obama, I hope you know what your getting into because the money changers will take you out if you don't go along with the bullshit. 9/11 truth anyone, how much more obvious does it have to get! Oh I know how about a resource war for oil played off as a crusade for freedom while millions die in sudan under a brutal dictator who lets the oil flow.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

All of us
Posted by: lukitas on Jan 27, 2008 6:11 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Barack Obama is going to need a lot more than our vote if this is going to work. He will need our voice. We have to make heard our need to live. Our need not to be afraid for the future of our children. We, all of us have to make ourselves heard. Our voice has to ring, if we wish Obama to spearhead this battle for us.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

i don't think so
Posted by: allyourbasearebelongtous on Jan 27, 2008 8:49 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
yeah see losing this one primary to obama because most of the black democratic voters there voted (incredible huge surprise here!!!!!) for the black candidate doesn't mean hilary clinton has lost the nomination to obama unless you think that most of the other primaries are going to have at least as high a percentage of black participation and that the voting will continue to break the same way. also even if that were to be the case, you have to wonder if obama could win the general election as by then he would have been identified as the black candidate by the msm totally aside from whether such a characterization would be either accurate or fair. will i vote for him if he wins the nomination? absolutely because he has to be better than 4-8 more years of gopism but he does have to be a better noob national leader than bush was or we are screwed anyways.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: i don't think so Posted by: Spot
» RE: i don't think so Posted by: allyourbasearebelongtous
Democrats should Remember!
Posted by: SirGrifflet on Jan 28, 2008 4:58 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
As the son and grandson of two generations of construction union labor leaders one of the things bequeathed to me has been a natural philosophical leaning towards the policies of the Democratic Party. One of the things I was most proud of as a young boy was my father's meeting President Kennedy at a labor convention in 1962. The first part I ever took in any political campaign was handing out flyers for Robert Kennedy.

Unfortunately this party on the national level makes it extremely difficult to support its candidates. George McGovern gave us Richard Nixon, the people who supported McGovern had the best of intentions and may not have been able to help elect the far more palatable Hubert Humphrey, but, by the time they finished their internal Democratic Party battle Richard Nixon was the winner and the war they hated continued for several more years.

Jimmy Carter was a decent man who I have always respected on a number of levels, but his flawed Presidency gave us Ronald Reagan, whose Presidency and campaign against Walter Mondale and Geraldine Ferraro caused many Democrats to become permanent Republicans.

Mike Dukakis helped give us George H. W. Bush whose stature as a public servant helped not only elect him but also his son to the same office.

Bill Clinton the only successful Democratic Party candidate since President Carter, won office by a plurality in his first campaign due to the presence of a conservative third party candidate. The problem with the Democratic Party is that it is over run by people ready to jump on the trendiest band wagon to come along every election cycle. They are led by their emotions rather than by the analytical mind needed for serious political calculation. One just has to remember the red state blue state maps to understand why these calculations are necessary. The same trendy people who voted for Ralph Nader in 2000 are at work here in 2008.

This time the trendy are embracing Barack Obama who may or may not at some time have the right stuff, as they say. Senator Obama's problem is that he has only completed one half of a term in the Senate. John Edwards who has spent twice as much time as Mr. Obama in the Senate is also woefully inexperienced, and his only claim to fame is being one of the major errors of the Presidential quest of Senator John Kerry. Also if I remember correctly Mr. Edwards didn’t carry his home state in that election either.

Hillary Clinton's Senatorial experience is only slightly longer but her time as First Lady and the heretofore unspoken fact that she will be laying next to a former president every night as she lays herself down to sleep makes her appear the far safer candidate to lead a nation at war in two places at the same time and with several other hot prospects on the horizon. If Bill is as supportive in the oval office as on the campaign trail the national comfort level may rise.

While at the moment focus is squarely on healthcare and the economy, when people are alone in that voting booth Osama Bin Laden and our two front war will regain their prominence among thinking people who will have to question turning a nation at war over to such inexperienced hands. I do not consider myself to be any different than anyone else. I want candidates who care about health care, education and the environment to succeed, leaving my grandchildren the best planet possible; but I know once in that booth the relative my family lost in the World Trade Center will come to mind as will Afghanistan, Iraq, Iran, Pakistan and North Korea and I know I will not be able to pull a lever, punch a chad or color an oval for anyone but the most experienced candidate, the one I believe who will keep us safest, whether he or she is a democrat or a republican and I don't believe I will be alone.

Martin Griffin
N.Y.C.
SirGriffletNY@aol.com

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Democrats should Remember! Posted by: allyourbasearebelongtous