CNN has an on-screen countdown. 3:09 and counting down!
UPDATE: They plan to project the winner immediately. 22 seconds to go.
UPDATE 2: CNN projects "a strong victory for Barack Obama."
UPDATE 3: CNN shows Edwards and Clinton in a close fight for second, with Edwards getting more of the white vote than Clinton (39% to 36%).
UPDATE 4: There he is! Barack Obama! CNN has just told us that Caroline Kennedy endorses Obama and thinks he's like her father. And now we see Barack hand in hand with Michelle, who's wearing a Jackie Kennedy-invoking pink suit. "We are hungry for change, and we are ready to believe again." Chant: "We want change! We want change!" The huge banner in back of him says "CHANGE we can believe in." The lectern in front of him says "Change." People want to tell you that white people won't vote for the African-American, but "we are here tonight to tell you that is not the America we believe in."
२६ जानेवारी, २००८
याची सदस्यत्व घ्या:
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा (Atom)
पोस्ट्स
६६ टिप्पण्या:
Awesome. Hopefully the beginning of the end for her.
All that emphasis on race and gender, and all that detail, from projections, about breakdowns ... and yet--am I missing something?--I've yet to catch an overall projection of how Obama did. It's not that I'm that in to projections per se, it's just that I'm finding it notable how it's being framed, especially on CNN, and where they're concentrating.
Shorter: They only say "substantial," overall (presumably because they can't know), and yet have all this detail they're emphasizing as if it's gold. A disconnect, to me.
Other channels are handling it a bit differently. Why I'm noticing this so much, I guess.
wow.
CNN exit poll shows that the turnout was 61% female.
Link
Link
Whoops. Don't know what happened to the link.
It's sisterhood versus the sistas in the hood.
I think this puts Obama in a bit of a bind. A victory that gets credited to Obama's support in the black community will surely alienate white voters and will especially distance Hispanic voters in critical states like Florida and California. Now the pressure is on Obama to distance himself from the very voters who brought him South Carolina. Obama has to do something dramatic in the coming days - either by opposing race-based affirmative action or doing something bold to make the election about Iraq - or he risks being marginalized as The Black Candidate - the very thing he has tried so hard to finesse around.
dmfoiemjsof said...
Awesome. Hopefully the beginning of the end for her.
Not likely. She is in it til the end. Unless some real, hard hitting dirt comes out or some one proves she does not have the thrity five years of experience she claims. That is unlikely too. She is the true stealth candidate. We only know what she tells us.
I wonder if it's the Oprah factor. She only campaigned for him in Iowa and South Carolina and here he is, actual winner in one and projected winner in the other. Hmmm.
So hmmmm where does he send Oprah for Super Tuesday?
Cali?
Lindsay has it right. Dick Morris wrote something to that effect this past week. While I don't think that Hillary set this up as a trap for him (I don't believe in the omniscient and superhuman Hillary theory any more than I did for Rove in his heyday), this may end up being a trap for Obama.
Wow. Covernor Crist just enorsed MCCain.
Crist has a 60% approval rating in Florida.
Lindsay said...
Obama has to do something dramatic in the coming days...
Obama has to grow a pair. He has to attack Hillary's record and make her prove it. He has to attack her dirty politics. He has to go on the offensive instead of playing defense only. For that he needs to take the gloves off. No more mister nice guy.
OMG, BILL CLINTON JUST UTTERED THE FOLLOWING WORDS (IN INDEPENDENCE, MO):
"... In my current role, post-politics, I work with ..."
I'm sorry, I don't care who you are or not aligned with, or you back, but that is flat-out hilarious, or at least ought to be for anyone with any sense of humor at all.
OK, I've stopped howling enough to retro-proofread:
"I'm sorry, I don't care whom you are or are not aligned with, or whom you back, but that is flat-out hilarious, or at least it ought to be to anyone with any sense of humor at all."
Exit polls say Wild Bill's camaigning hurt.....
And Jonathan Chait writes:
"Something strange happened the other day. All these different people -- friends, co-workers, relatives, people on a liberal e-mail list I read -- kept saying the same thing: They've suddenly developed a disdain for Bill and Hillary Clinton. Maybe this is just a coincidence, but I think we've reached an irrevocable turning point in liberal opinion of the Clintons.
The sentiment seems to be concentrated among Barack Obama supporters. Going into the campaign, most of us liked Hillary Clinton just fine, but the fact that tens of millions of Americans are seized with irrational loathing for her suggested that she might not be a good Democratic nominee. But now that loathing seems a lot less irrational. We're not frothing Clinton haters like ... well, name pretty much any conservative. We just really wish they'd go away."
Well they're not frothing like conservatives. They're all frothed out setting frothing records in they're insane rage over Bush. Didn't the same guy write an editorial on why he hated George Bush a couple of years ago?
Anyway it's amusing to see remedial left finally realize what was painfully obvious to the rest of us years ago. But what will really be amusing is if all these fools have to turn 180 degrees again back into rabid Clinton supporters if she wins the nomination.
Meet-up at the Spider House, 2:00 a.m.
Be there.
I think there is an elememnt of believability in Dick Morriss's theory. But no matter what, I don't look forward to seeing a purpley red, finger wagging Bill Clinton for the next 9 months (4 ys 9 months, 8 yrs 9 months).
Can anyone say it won't happen or it won't bother you?
CNN is reporting that an op-ed by Caroline Kennedy will appear in the NYT tomorrow, endorsing Barack Obama and referencing her father.
Say, wasn't South Carolina supposed to be one of those states full of racist wackos where Obama couldn't possibly win?
This was reported in the minutes leading up to Sen. Obama's speech.
Hillary's campaign responded to the SC loss by reminding us that she still has the most delegates. They forgot to tell us that she already had an edge; she holds over two hundred super delegates that the DNC pledged to her.
But those are only pledged. Hopefully Bill will sink her.
I know the change is "We. Want. Change. We. Want. Change. We. Want. Change."
But I can't help hearing (resonating from other situations and contexts):
"Block. That. Kick. Block. That. Kick. Block. That. Kick."
Yeah, weird. I know.
I know the chant is...
[That would be the c]hant during Sen. Obama's speech, of course. Sorry.
Reader: Larry the Cable Guy's line is, "I don't care who ya are, that's funny."
Pink suit reminiscent of Jackie??? Do you mean the one spattered with blood in Dallas?
That pink suit gave me a shiver up and down my spine... glad I am not the only one who noticed.
I also know the chant changed, but I was commenting at the start of it.
***
RAA: Thanks. You know, I never actually saw that movie--but you can be sure that my husband has, and most of the extended family, and many friends, so I almost feel as if I have. But the truth is, I haven't.
Doesn't mean I wasn't unconsciously channeling based on osmotic experience, of course ... .
Is anyone else cracking up at Hillary's new Southern accent? Who does she think she is - Scarlett O'Hara? Tomorrow is another day, indeed.
Very interesting. Obama is very inspirational.
Obama won twice as many votes as McCain and Huckabee combined in very red state South Carolina.
Obama would be the republicans worst nightmare and Hilary would be their dream candidate.
Lindsay: The thing is, it's not quite new.
But it did jump out at me anew, very very recently indeed--that is to say, in the last day or two, I think-- and I want to say during in a speech in Florida, but, you know, at some point things occasionally begin to blur.
My bad.
Sorry I meant Obama won in vote total in SC compared to Mccain and Huckabee combined.
Also, 200,000 more democrats voted today than voted in 2004.
Oh me, oh my. What are the Clintons going to do? The daughter of Democratic Royalty, their idol, the man the pattern themselves after (gag, barf), the man who shook Billy's hand and inspired him, is supporting Obama!
Caroline Kennedy in an oped piece in NYT tomorrow is supporting Obama. The rest of the Kennedy clan can't be far behind.
Some women just can't do it alone, they have to have a man's help - I really wonder what audience Bill thought he was pandering to in S. Carolina, surely not common people...
If it's change the nation wants, it will be a sharp left turn with Obama.
He, Durbin (D-Ill), and Harkin (D-Io) are the three most liberal senators, according to Votefromabroad.org, which compared ratings issued by the ACLE, Children's Defense Fund, NAACP, NARAL, the PTA, and others.
By comparison, McCain ranks as a centrist.
"he's really liberal" will get really tired but that is the only thing the republicans will have to run on.
That and of course taxes.
Obama's victory was impressive - he beat expectations in every category. Still an uphill battle, though. The establishment is against him, and they control the convention if the elected delegate totals are close.
And how have the no taxes been for us as a country over the past 7 years?
We are now getting rebates, the stock market is a mess, gas is over 3.00 a gallon, etc.
Not that I want any new taxes but the whole "democrats will tax us into the poor house" doesn't sit too well when the country is in the economic situation it is in currently.
By the way I am going out tonight to get some hog.
Titus: Didn't you know that it has been decided, "The Party of Fiscal Responsibility" is the winning slogan for the GOP in 2008.
For all the talk about Obama as a new Democrat, with a vision for a rejuvenated 21st-century politics, his speech offered a tremendously class-driven, populist appeal, likely to divide the country more than unite it. He called for the immediate end to the war in Iraq - coded antiwar language for an immediate troop withdrawal, precisely when military and political developments are at their best since March 2003.
His supporters, I must say, seemed to rock the decibel-meter more so than any victory speech I've seen this year. Maybe I just have the volume set a bit high. It sure seemed that the energy was just pumping out of the auditorium.
Obama gained what he needed most going forward: momentum. He'll see a surge in contributions next week, and a priceless rush of earned media, as his visage's further splashed acrossed newspapers, magazines, and TV news shows around the country following this Palmetto State breakthrough.
Obama's position on Iraq is a lot more nuanced than pull all the troops out now.
Another perspective which, while written before tonight's results, perhaps should be taken into account, amidst all the other accountings.
In some respects, this is similar to what Pat Buchanan was saying, completely in the minority, during a lively debate on MSNBC tonight. I do perceive the obvious differences, and on more than one level. Still, that's interesting.
It's valid to look at all the pieces of the puzzle, isn't it?
If it's change the nation wants, it will be a sharp left turn with Obama.
He, Durbin (D-Ill), and Harkin (D-Io) are the three most liberal senators, according to Votefromabroad.org, which compared ratings issued by the ACLE, Children's Defense Fund, NAACP, NARAL, the PTA, and others.
You know, I remember a few years ago when numerous studies found that John Kerry was the most liberal senator as he ran for President. Why do I suspect that electoral viability corresponds with the "most liberal Senator" title every 4 years? (At least according to some 'independent' group.)
titusrj said...Very interesting. Obama is very inspirational.
True, he inspired the black vote to come out for him. No surprise, just as I predicted.
Obama won twice as many votes as McCain and Huckabee combined in very red state South Carolina.
A state with all the "red" voters in the Republican party who of course didn't vote for him. A so called red state with one of the highest percentage black vote in the country which did vote for him.
Problem is more than 75% of the White DEMOCRATS voted for Hillary and Edwards combined!!
So the black vote all went for Obama and the white vote went overwhelmingly for the White candidates. And this was among Democrats! Obviously, this doesn't bode well for Obama in the general election.
Obama would be the republicans worst nightmare and Hilary would be their dream candidate.
Obama remains the Republican dream candidate. A totally unqualified black male running against the highly qualified and capable Mitt Romney. It will be a referendum on the worst stereotype of affirmative action. Who you gonna hire - the highly qualified White man or the black guy with no qualifications.
I see a 1972 Nixon/McGovern type blow out of historic proportions if the Dems select this nothing candidate.
Romney still beats Hillary but it would be much closer.
Now if only the Republican goofballs would just send McCain back to the Senate old folks home and get on with it.
Again, why are we supposed to want a painkiller-addled womanizer who is going to commit a series of diplomatic blunders that will leave us on the cusp of a nuclear war, and cause the reformist leader of our strongest enemy to be deposed and replaced with a hardliner?
To call someone JFK-like is to say that they are so incompetent that the only way they can avoid the ignominy of being remembered as the worst president ever is by getting shot by a lunatic.
There was no more liberal a candidate than George MvGovern in 1972.
As for Obama, in addition to the race thing, he's got a refreshing combination of newness, charisma, and honesty going on. As for any actual competency he may possess to be president, I'm thinking that 4 years of Obama will yield about what 4 years of what Jimmy Carter got us. So it's not as if he's exactly unprecedented.
What's your test of presidential competency? And how did GWB stand on that scale going into the 2000 election?
Oh, please. Obama crushed Hillary. Period. He crushed her.
1. She needs the black vote in the general, so you can't pretend black votes don't count. It's the Democratic Party. They can't win without high turnout of black votes.
2. The white male vote split roughly evenly between all three candidates. (That's the vote Democrats usually don't get.) So to say Obama wasn't competitive or whites wouldn't vote for him is nonsense. Not to mention ignores IOWA.
3. Obama racked up the youth vote, the independent and Republican vote, and turnout was very high.
Obama stomped all over the Clintons faces. There is no other analysis. This is the first majority vote win in the Democratic contest. He crushed her.
No one and no polls predicted a victory by this margin.
Caroline's endorsement will mean almost nothing to people under about 45.
JFK was a war hero, a low tax man, and involved us in a foreign war that his Democratic successor enlarged and mismanaged. If he is the candidate, either Romney or McCain will ask the questions the other Dems won't, but I don't think it will be a blowout as bad as 1972. The nation is much more pacifist and addicted to the teat of the nanny now. Maybe 45-55.
Just to jump-start (the offshoot) of the meme, post-sunrise 1/27/2008, here is a link to the hit parade of 1960 (scroll down through the months--yeah, irritating, not how I'd do the site, but whatever).
And here is the the same site's hit parade of 1961.
Quite the update, by the way. Notable, even.
Mortimer Brezny said...Oh, please. Obama crushed Hillary. Period. He crushed her.
No, the black vote crushed her. Obama LOST more than 75% of the White vote among Democrats.
1. She needs the black vote in the general, so you can't pretend black votes don't count. It's the Democratic Party. They can't win without high turnout of black votes.
Obama needs the White vote more and he didn't get it even among the Democrats.
2. The white male vote split roughly evenly between all three candidates. (That's the vote Democrats usually don't get.)
But he still lost the vast majority of the White male vote in an exclusively Democrat party primary. And the great majority of the White male vote in a state like S.C. isn't even Democrat.
So to say Obama wasn't competitive or whites wouldn't vote for him is nonsense. Not to mention ignores IOWA.
If you think losing 75% of the White vote is a sign of competitiveness you are delusional.
And Obama LOST 63% of the vote in the far left Iowa caucuses. And that was hyped as some great achievement.
3. Obama racked up the youth vote, the independent and Republican vote, and turnout was very high.
Obama racked up overwhelming support among blacks and got CRUSHED on the White vote. 75% of the White DEMOCRATS said no thanks.
Obama stomped all over the Clintons faces. There is no other analysis. This is the first majority vote win in the Democratic contest. He crushed her.
The black vote did spit in the Clinton's face no doubt.
No one and no polls predicted a victory by this margin.
The reverse Bradley effect. Blacks saying they were going to vote for Clinton and then voting their race. Just as I said. O.J. jury. Race trumps gender.
Romney is now a lock as the next president.
...but I think we've reached an irrevocable turning point in liberal opinion of the Clintons.
I think there is something to that. I spoke a few days ago with some white, liberal relatives in California and they have decided to switch from HRC to Obama in the primary because of disgust with Bill's antics. And they were strong Clinton supporters in the past.
CNN exit poll shows that the turnout was 61% female.
Obama has nice eyes.
No, the black vote crushed her. Obama LOST more than 75% of the White vote among Democrats.
Actually, the black vote is what saved Hillary from coming in a distant third. Edwards beat Hillary among white voters; she only pulled off second place because she received almost all the black votes that didn't go to Obama.
Interestingly, Obama won the majority of non-black voters under the age of 30.
If Bill and Hill continue as they are does anyone think they will receive a massive and spirited support from black voters in November?bingo123
A couple of random thoughts: Bill Clinton is singlehandedly destroying the democratic party. As one commenter observed, HRC had a huge lead going into SC; then Bill started his finger wagging and racial pandering. I know thats an post hoc error in logic, but logic is one thing, and results are another.
The second thought has to do with Edwards--Edwards may well turn out to be the king maker in this election--Depending on results of the mega primaries, he could have enough delgates to throw to Obama and sink HRC--certainly the egregious robo calls from the clinton campaign criticizing him on fair trade, when BILL himself signed NAFTA speaks to the disreputability and the sheer perfidiousness of the Clintons and their machine. Keep your eye on Edwards--he isnt going to win outright, but he will make the Clintons pay big time.
And it only took the liberals 15 years to understand that it is the Clintons who are trailer park trash. Genuine scum bags they are, and the sooner they are off the stage, this country can start to heal.
And Bill Clinton's swipe at Obama comparing him to Jesse Jackson is nothing more than an overtly racial appeal to white voters who detest the Reverand Jackson. Wonder how those counselling session with Jackson went post Monica.
South Carolina is a bit of an anomoly. The racial makeup of the rest of the US isn't like it is there, so Obama has some serious problems heading into super duper Tuesday. The numbers just don't favor him.
What's your test of presidential competency? And how did GWB stand on that scale going into the 2000 election?
Pretty high.
Titan said...
"You know, I remember a few years ago when numerous studies found that John Kerry was the most liberal senator as he ran for President. Why do I suspect that electoral viability corresponds with the 'most liberal Senator' title every 4 years?"
That was in 2004, when Obama wasn't a Senator and Durbin had served only half as long there as he has now. As data piles up, assesments can change; that Kerry isn't today the most liberal Senator doesn't mean that he wasn't four years ago - both conclusions can coexist. (I'm not saying that you're necessarily wrong, only that the conclusion doesn't follow on that evidence alone.)
"People want to tell you that white people won't vote for the African-American, but 'we are here tonight to tell you that is not the America we believe in.'"
What people want to tell folks that?
Simon: I'm guessing its probably President Clinton given his Jesse Jackson swipe.
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा