The race topic being in the headlines benefits only one Dem candidate - period.

[robbedvoter]

As I see now that not only Clinton, but Edwards is also started to be blamed of "playing the race card" the question is: bringing the race issue at the forefront would rally - whose base?
Why would the other two want to shoot themselves in the foot?

[Inuca]

1. Wrong

The issue is not "rallying the base" (do you think that Obama is so stupid not to see that he cannot win the nomination based solely or mostly on the black vote, let alone the general?), but distorting and diffusing Obama's message of unity. And I am sure you know, as do all the others that use similar verbiage, the Clintons included.

[robbedvoter]

6. Blacks were not all that crazy about Obama - in SC either - until they felt

that their identity is at issue

[pampango]

8. Well said, Inuca!

Who really believes that, after doing quite well with the white vote in Iowa, NH and Nevada, Obama decided to start playing the "race card" so that he could rally his base and potentially alienate some white voters.

If Obama made this decision then he is not very smart and deserves whatever he gets. If, on the other hand, the "card" was played by another candidate, it could be a very "smart" tactic (in the sense that it makes Obama less attractive, they hope, to the majority of voters), but is not a "good" tactic in any sense of the word.

[Tom Rinaldo]

12. Since Obama lost New Hampshire, race is helping Obama

In the long run race likely will be a problem for Obama after the contest leaves South Carolina. But Obama can't afford to worry about the long run now, because if he lost South Carolina after losing both the popular and Hispanic vote in Nevada (and that was why Nevada got moved up - to give a say to latinos) and losing the nations first primary in New Hampshire, Obama can't afford to also lose South Carolina (which got moved up to give African American voters an early say) heading into Super Tuesday.

With this scenario, long term liabilities needed to take a back seat to short term survival. If Obama wins SC then he can move on to dealing with any fall out associated with being tagged as "the black candidate". If he loses South Carolina that becomes academic and moot. He will be functionally be out of the running. Obama has been riding a two fold strategy to win South Carolina and keep his candidacy alive. One is a positive appeal to African American pride in SC black voters, the other is a negative appeal for SC blacks to reject a racist campaign that the Clinton camp is being blamed for. Those are the two sides of the same racial card that Obama is playing to win in South Carolina. And it is working

[jackson_dem]

13. Tom is right. This is why Michelle Obama introduced race into this first

[robbedvoter]

17. Thank you. That was my feeling too. SC is critical - all stops are pulled out

It's a survival race.

[Occam Bandage]

21. Obama's victory in South Carolina was a done deal after Iowa. He leapt ahead by 20 points.

Once black voters saw he was viable, there was never any doubt he would win. Never. Your idea is based on a fallacy.

[Tom Rinaldo]

33. That is not how I remember it. You are overemphazing the immediate Iowa bounce

All the polls skewed heavily toward Obama immediately after he won Iowa. That included the national betting odds that he would become the Democratic nominee where Obama became the temporary overwhelming favorite. You could just as easily say that Obama jumped 12 points ahead in New Hampshire immediately after Iowa, which was close to a 20 point short term shift also.

[Occam Bandage]

41. And you're ignoring the demographics behind the bounce.

Obama's gain in South Carolina was almost entirely within the black community. Previously, the largest stumbling block for Obama among blacks was a lack of belief that he was "viable;" Iowa proved to them that he was. While Obama's bounce faded in every other state, it did not fade among blacks--it was a transformation, not a bounce.

[robbedvoter]

34. What happened THEN is not relevant today. Nationals are snapshots for the day

they do not inform a month and several races after - I learned that much from Clark 2004. SC is wide open. Not sure deal for any of them as of today.

[Occam Bandage]

43. Again, hand-waving is not analysis.

[Occam Bandage]

2. Clinton. Obama stands to be marginalized if he becomes "the black candidate,"

and Edwards hasn't moved either way on this topic.

[robbedvoter]

5. Hillary was leading with all segments of the population, of every color before this

Nope. That campaign memo had laughable examples - later all retracted and was meant to prepare the SC base. It was acted upon - even after the "truce" (mayor of Atlanta running with the fairy tale et al). It raised Obama's # in SC - and his chances in THAT election. In the long run, I agree - bad idea.
But it certainly doesn't benefit the Clintons in any way - as before the word "race" was daily in the headlines Hillary was ahead - wirh all colors dems.

[Occam Bandage]

10. So wait, wait, wait.

Now, Obama was no-doubt going to win SC after he won Iowa, so there's no benefit to him there. And in the long run, you agree the racial brouhaha has damaged the Obama campaign. But yet damage to the Obama campaign does not benefit the Clintons in any way?

How can you hold both of those positions simultaneously? It's a zero-sum game. Given that neither Obama nor Clinton are stupid, the best explanation for your take on the results is that Hillary's campaign decided SC was a lost cause, and decided to torpedo her chances there in order to marginalize Obama long-run.

[robbedvoter]

18. First of all, SC is not a sure thing for anyone. It's survival for Obama. See #12

See Tom Rinaldo's post for a more articulate explanation.

[Occam Bandage]

19. SC is indeed a sure thing for Obama, and was as soon as he won IA. #12 ignores that.

[robbedvoter]

26. I beg to differ. Polls are not to be trusted - too many variables - here's my analysis:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=4180669&mesg_id=4180669
also, Iowa and SC are very different in many ways
- caucus vs primary
-open primary
- the South
All these difference can play in anyone's favor

[Occam Bandage]

29. Hand-waving is not analysis. Polls are generally extremely accurate, with variations only

occurring during times of rapid shift--such as with NH after Iowa. SC is about as clear as a race can be.

[robbedvoter]

31. And you discount rapid shifts in SC? How about slow shifts like women turnout?

Did polls include 59% women in their sample? A lot of DU-ers (not me) believe massive shifts were created by the last debate...The media circus may influence voters even as we speak.

[Occam Bandage]

37. And yet polling is not showing any rapid shifts. Polling also generally accounts

for expected turnout rates; that only fails when turnout is larger than could be expected. Barring an enormously transformative moment (which would have to be even greater than Hillary's brilliant coffee-shop monologue), Obama will safely win SC, and will win big. Such moments are few and unpredictable, and can change the entire dynamics of a race; they cannot be guarded against. There is no advantage for Obama to sacrifice later support to run up the score in SC; there is enormous advantage for Hillary to paint Obama as "the black candidate."

[Tom Rinaldo]

45. Untill after the SC debate

I doubt Obama could feel even reasonably confident that SC "was in the bag" no matter what his polling then showed. His polling immediately before the NH debate probably showed that NH "was in the bag" also. He had to keep playing to win; he could not afford to underperform expectations again as dramatically happened in New Hampshire. If Obama lost SC it would be over for him, period. It was pull out all the stops time, no margin for error.

[Occam Bandage]

47. Again, you're ignoring that Obama's SC gains were on stronger territory than the NH bounce.

An SC win would have required a miracle for the Clinton campaign, and smart politicians do not trade away their entire campaign narrative to ward off a miracle.

[Tom Rinaldo]

54. We honestly don't see this quite the same

First off I assume you actually meant "Iowa bounce" above.

After NH the equations all got scrambled. Hillary was no longer so hard up for a victory that she had to ignore SC completely to throw all her resourses into Super Tuesday contests that presented her with a better opportunity. She was poised to be able to direct serious attention to South Carolina if it seemed adantegeous for her to do so.

At one point the Clinton campaign considered not seriously contesting Iowa also you might remember, but they rethought that tactic when it seemed they might be able to land a knock out blow against Obama if they managed to beat him there. So I think SC was briefly back in full play if African Americans had again began doubting that Obama can win the nomination. Even if Hillary still felt she would lose SC, just her coming close to Obama in the African American vote there could have been spun as a victory of sorts for her under the circumstances, heading into Super Tuesday. Obama could not risk that. By allowing the tone of the contest in SC to become more racial, he helped quash that threat from Hillary Clinton and helped insure he would win a very solid victory in SC, which is exactly what he needs.

[rodeodance]

14. Clinton saying it aside--I do think there is some truth in that statements.

[Occam Bandage]

16. And so the question is:

Is it that Obama is suicidal, or is it that Clinton is ruthless?

[robbedvoter]

20. Obama is fighting for survival in SC, long term be damned. See #12

[Occam Bandage]

22. Only there is not nor was there ever a question of his victory in SC.

[robbedvoter]

36. Would the fight be that ferocious if that were the case? The other candidates

are far from leaving the state uncontested.

[Occam Bandage]

38. Hillary outright left SC; the fight in SC is no longer for SC itself.

[Tom Rinaldo]

46. And the fight is not confined to matters with a racial over tone from either side either n/t

[Occam Bandage]

48. The only racial statement the Obama campaign itself has made

was telling supporters to stop it.

[Tom Rinaldo]

52. You need look no further than his wife to refute this comment n/t

[Occam Bandage]

53. Michelle accused Clinton of being a racist?

[Tom Rinaldo]

55. You are moving the bar on me

I thought the subject was "race content" and "racial statements", not just overt blunt accusations of literal racism.

[Occam Bandage]

56. Well, this entire conversation is about racial politics vis-a-vis Clinton and Obama.

Michelle made direct appeals to black voters, but all politicians pander to blocs by referencing them.

[rodeodance]

35. maybe a little of both.

[IndianaJones]

3. It benefits Clinton. nt.

[Inuca]

4. Thank you n/t

[robbedvoter]

7. Not in this race.

[Occam Bandage]

11. She had lost SC the minute Obama won Iowa. She's looking beyond SC.

[robbedvoter]

23. I don't think any of them lost SC yet. But the emphasis on race - not helping Hillary

nor Edwards any more than sexist remarks helped the two men.

[Occam Bandage]

25. The polling shows a decisive Obama victory, and has stably done so since Iowa.

And you yourself admitted that the racial tint harmed Obama's campaign long-term, as did your much-admired Post Twelve.

[robbedvoter]

40. Polling In Iowa and NH was discredited. I predict this one may very well be as well

Come to think of it, there were Nevada polls too that showed the 3 in dead heat - days before the election.

[Occam Bandage]

44. Caucus polling is different than primary polling, due to the 15-percent rule. The

entrance polling matched the pre-election polling very well, suggesting that the IA polling was actually very good. NH polling was exceptional, due to the rapid shifts occurring at that time.

[redqueen]

9. I don't think it benefits any Dem candidate. I think it benefits the GOP.

It's a FAR too emotionally-loaded subject.

[Jai4WKC08]

51. And the corporate media

Which is probably the same thing.

[BootinUp]

15. But the candidates don't need to mention race,

for the issue to be discussed. The fact is that supporters, neutral politicians, and the media can all start a shitstorm all by themselves. Race is an issue in America whether the candidates discuss it or not. And that is why it is silly and naive to charge the Clinton campaign or the Obama campaign with playing the race card based on what I have seen. I am starting to think this was inevitable no matter what the candidates did. As soon as the contest became close or unclear (after Iowa) the tensions that are built up in this country were bound to explode, whether the candidates wanted it to or not.

[robbedvoter]

24. True, but surrogates sure did - started with the ridiculous memo and other

idiotic comments such as "why didn't Hillary cry for Katrina?"
MSM is lapping it up - just as Bill Clinton said - it's what they are after. But they are offered leads by those interested.

[Occam Bandage]

28. The memo was merely a collection of MSM responses to controversial comments, and was

not released by the Obama campaign. As a former worker for several campaigns, I can say that weekly updates on the other guy's dumb moves are pretty common.

JJJ's remarks had nothing to do with racism. Katrina was an American issue, not a black issue.

[jackson_dem]

27. Only one Dem candidate would have a speaker talk about "racial pride" at a rally

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/01/23/AR2008012303655.html?hpid%3Dtopnews&sub=AR

-snip-

Immediately before Obama took the stage, the woman introducing him made an explicit case for racial pride. "Our Latino brothers have integrity, our Indian brothers have integrity, our Caucasian brothers and sisters have integrity," she said. "God didn't anoint one set of people to have standards and not everybody else. This is why we are attracted and drawn to Senator Obama."

[redqueen]

42. Oh, God...

*sigh*

[Pathwalker]

30. "Some people question whether or not you're black enough"

This was said to Barack Obama BEFORE any primary whatsoever be Steve Kroft on 60 minutes. This is why I blame the media and not either campaign. It wins the award for stupidest question ever asked of a Democratic candidate. This question was asked of Obama last December.

[MethuenProgressive]

32. Obama wants to Swiftboat Clinton on Race , and is succeeding ala Rove v Kerry.

Rove knew Kerry was very strong on his military record and support of vets, so Rove attacked there.
Obama knows the Clintons are very strong with their support from, and their support of, the African American community, and so Obama is attacking there.

I Hope Democrats won't let it happen again.

[Occam Bandage]

39. It is clearly in Obama's interest to destroy his message of unity and hope, right?

[MethuenProgressive]

49. Nobody every really thought that high school cheer was a "message", did they?

Oh, sorry. Other than you, I mean.

[Occam Bandage]

50. Well, since you've said that's all he had, and that's all that drew people to him,

why would he strangle the goose that lays the fools-golden eggs?