27 Comments

• 1. phnx  |  January 26th, 2008 at 6:21 pm

  The Clintons made this a battle of race against gender. What a big mistake. The Dems have always depended upon the black vote to turn our for them. Hillary still has the lead nationally and will probably win the nomination. However she and Bill run the risk of alienating the black vote, and while they won’t vote Republican, if they stay home in large numbers in November, Hillary will have a tough time winning.

  So after her nomination, count on Hillary promising to give away the national treasury to win them back. Count on Jesse and the crew to extort concessions from her for the “get out the vote” promise.

  Dems who rail against prejudice should be ashamed of the Clintons.

• 2. Obama Supporter  |  January 26th, 2008 at 7:24 pm

  Bad news for Obama tonight - white Democrats voted overwhelmingly for Edwards and Clinton, hardly any for Obama. Can you say “racial divide”, boys and girls?

  Why the hurry to cast an ugly racial cast to this primary Mark?

  Once again, your’e more than a little wrong. This isn’t even one of your patented half-truths. Not even a quarter-truth in fact.

  From your beloved Fox News:

  Race had been a constant subtext to the state’s primary, with polls showing Obama taking a strong lead among black voters. But Obama was looking to score a win built on a diverse coalition of voters, proving he’s got broad appeal going into Feb. 5.
  ….
  Edwards, meanwhile, was seeking a strong showing in his home state, which he won during his 2004 bid for the party’s nomination. He did well among white voters, 39 percent to 36 percent for Clinton. Obama got 24 percent of the white vote, exit polling suggests.

  So: Clinton seems to be on 36 per cent of the white vote, versus 39 for Edwards and 24 for Obama. Given the fact that a certain amount of white people in South Carolina still have, shall we say, old-fashioned views about black people it’s pretty amazing that Obama managed to get 24% of the white vote in what John Edwards considers his home state and one where the Clintons are viewed as superstars amongst democratic voters.

  But good for you for putting a racial tinge upon this result Mark. It’s an approach like that that’s going to help this country move forward together.

• 3. sleepygene  |  January 26th, 2008 at 7:28 pm

  Mark-

  White vote in SC 24% Obama, 36% Clinton, 29% Edwards. It is fair to say that when Edwards drops a majority of his supporters will turn to Obama. So your claim that “hardly any” whites voted for Obama is overstating it a bit. Also, Obama got 49% of the white vote that are 18-29. These numbers are from MSNBC.

  I think what this primary shows is that Bill should keep his big trap shut, because white and black in SC disapproved of his tone of campaigning for his wife.

• 4. winnowhead  |  January 26th, 2008 at 7:28 pm

  The only ones playing the race card are the so called “pundits” who are trying too hard for something to talk about.

  Yes, identity politics plays a role in Democratic primaries. As if it doesn’t in the GOP? It will take quite a while before the GOP would even consider a non-white male, and that’s not a cheap shot.

• 5. sleepygene  |  January 26th, 2008 at 7:31 pm

  oops…. ObamaSupporter you are right 39, 36, 24.

• 6. Ricorun  |  January 26th, 2008 at 8:06 pm

  Democratic politics are an enigma to me. I haven’t been just wrong about any assumption I’ve made, I’ve been totally wrong. That being said, what I find interesting about the SC primary is the contrast it provides to NH. Recall that after NH many suggested that “the Brady effect” (the idea that people will tell pollsters they will vote for a black person, but won’t actually pull the lever for them) played a big part in explaining the discrepancy between the pre-primary polls and the results. Apparently that didn’t happen in SC. In fact, Obama’s win appears to be substantially more decisive than the polls indicated.

  So if “the Brady effect” doesn’t explain the discrepancy, what might? Well, the other explanation offered in NH was the “sympathy vote”: as you recall, in the run-up to NH there was a perception that everyone was “piling on” Hillary (personally, I can’t think of any person more deserving of being piled on than Hillary, but maybe that’s just me). Now, in the run-up to the SC primary, the perception was more like what phnx said: the Clinton campaign was piling on Obama. And I think he might have gotten some sympathy votes for that. The exit polls seem to suggest that.

  As far as Mark’s statement about how well Obama did with white voters: “white Democrats voted overwhelmingly for Edwards and Clinton, hardly any for Obama,” that doesn’t appear to be the case. He certainly did exceedingly well among black voters across all sub-demographics, but apparently he also did just fine among white males and among young whites of both genders. The demographic where Hillary cleaned up on was with older white women.

  So identity politics certainly did play a big part in the SC vote. But that isn’t exactly a surprise. They are, after all, battling to be an historic first: either the first black or the first female to be nominated by a major party.

  How well that kind of identity politics will play in the general is hard to say. Obviously, there are more women in the country than blacks. But then again, Obama draws young people well from all over the place. On the other side Republicans are dealing with their own identity divides, except in the case of the GOP their divides are ideology-driven rather than identity-driven. Security conservatives, social conservatives, and fiscal conservatives can’t agree on any one candidate either. It remains to be seen how insurmountable those divides prove to be. Perhaps the difference is… I wouldn’t put it past the Clintons to be willing to wreck their party if they don’t win. I don’t see that happening on the GOP side.

  The other thing about this SC primary is… a lot of people voted in it. Extrapolating from the partial returns it looks like at least as many people voted in the Dem primary as did in the GOP primary. And considering how deeply red SC is supposed to be, that’s a little disconcerting.

  But November is a long way away.

• 7. sleepygene  |  January 26th, 2008 at 8:15 pm

  Rico-

  The numbers are very good for my side (Obama), in the Republican Primary in SC, 414,111 voted while with 93% reporting in the Democratic Primary 486,999 voted. Hopefully the Clinton’s don’t f it up by destroying the democratic party.

• 8. Rich  |  January 26th, 2008 at 8:26 pm

  Sleepygene- Bad weather during the republican primary is said to have kept a lot of voters in.

• 9. sleepygene  |  January 26th, 2008 at 8:46 pm

  Rich-

  Fair enough, but even if the weather was bad you still have to be woried as a Repubican about the excitement on the Democratic side.

• 10. sleepygene  |  January 26th, 2008 at 9:00 pm

  According to the results Obama’s 291K beat McCain & Huckabee’s combined 279K in SC. Good times.

• 11. Greg-O  |  January 26th, 2008 at 9:08 pm

  winnowhead posted, “It will take quite a while before the GOP would even consider a non-white male, and that’s not a cheap shot.”

  Seems a wasted shot considering that “non-white male” Piyush “Bobby” Jindal was recently elected the new GOP Governor of Louisiana.

  Democrats have invested themselves heavily into divisive politics, such as race and gender, so it is rather entertaining to watch how this cookie crumbles.

• 12. Jeremiah  |  January 26th, 2008 at 9:18 pm

  excitement on the Democratic side.–sleepygene.

  Americans are smarter than to vote for a Democrat.

  At least I HOPE they are…but not holdin’ my breath. You can never know what people will do next.

  –Jeremiah–

• 13. Doug  |  January 26th, 2008 at 9:56 pm

  MSNBC EXIT POLLING of NON-BLACK DEMOCRATS:

  Hillary: 42
  Edwards: 35
  Obama: 23

  I am irritated at the bad numbers above so thought I would put them down. What is most interesting to me is that 61 percent of the total vote were women. Are democrats the party of non-males? Are men going to flee or are women going to flock to the party.

• 14. Ricorun  |  January 26th, 2008 at 10:14 pm

  Brett Michaels: I have searched thru all your posts including your previous blog and not ONCE did you ever mention…”bad news for (insert white republican candidate)..black Republicans voted overwhelming for (insert another Republican candidate)”

  First of all, with a nic like “Brett Michaels” you’re black? Too funny. I guess you’ve trumped me on the misleading nic scale, lol!

  Anyway, I think you’re being a little hard on Mark — not much, but a little. I mean he’s come up with some incredibly bone-headed remarks of late (relatively speaking), and in this particular case he’s even more wrong than he normally is. But you have to consider the source. More importantly, you have to consider the context. Think about it — can even YOU say who black Republicans voted overwhelming for? I doubt it. Why? Because no one reports on it. Why? Because, unfortunately, it’s a demographic few in the Republican party care about. I think that’s stupid, but it is as it is.

  Greg-O claims that, “Democrats have invested themselves heavily into divisive politics, such as race and gender, so it is rather entertaining to watch how this cookie crumbles.” I would argue that the Republicans have invested themselves equally heavily in divisive politics, although its complexion is different. I’ve already mentioned that security conservatives, social conservatives, and fiscal conservatives can’t seem to get along. But to my mind it goes even deeper than that — IMO, Republicans have invested themselves in divisive politics by ignoring identity politics altogether. In an ideal society those things wouldn’t matter. But ours is not (at least not yet) an ideal society. And because it isn’t, those considerations matter to those affected. They are a reality. But so far, the Republicans haven’t made much of an effort to recognize that reality, much less make any sort of concerted effort to reach out to ANYONE who isn’t white or middle-aged.

  I’m not saying that the Democrats have the right answer to those groups who aren’t. What I’m saying is that the Republicans have come up with ANY answer at all. It’s so frustrating to me. I think the GOP has a lot to offer, and if they would open up, or at least explain themselves to those that don’t quite fit in. Instead they’re ignoring so many people that, for largely superficial reasons, don’t quite fit into their base — for fear of alienating those they have come to consider their base.

  It’s amazing to me how the memory of Reagan has played in this campaign. Everyone wants to conjure up images of him — they want to walk like him, talk like him, perhaps even look like him, but they’re missing the point — they really haven’t considered what it means to really BE like him on any sort of deeper level. To my mind, it’s not about any particular policy decision that existed then, or which exist now. It’s about an understanding of what exists at the time and what is possible considering where you want to go. To my mind, the only candidate that comes anywhere close is McCain. McCain is not Ronald Reagan. But then again, no one is — or ever will be. Reagan is dead.

• 15. Mark Noonan  |  January 26th, 2008 at 10:51 pm

  Ricorun,

  I expected far better than that from you.

• 16. RodneyAllen  |  January 27th, 2008 at 12:02 am

  Egad! Because…because… it just couldn’t be true.

  Yeesh. You actually believe people don’t see right through you.

  Psssst. They do.

• 17. ford  |  January 27th, 2008 at 12:22 am

  And as for your sly allusion to some sort of racist mindset on my part…I’ll take it up with by Sri Lankan parish priest…or perhaps with my African-American boss…or maybe my gay friends can help me out here…

  What do you want? A pat on the back??

• 18. Mark Noonan  |  January 27th, 2008 at 12:27 am

  ford,

  No, I would just prefer an end to idiotic comments…but as we will continue to allow lefties to comment, I fear I’m bound to be disappointed in this preference.

• 19. Ricorun  |  January 27th, 2008 at 2:39 am

  Mark: Ricorun, I expected far better than that from you.

  Then defend yourself. In this post you said, “Bad news for Obama tonight - white Democrats voted overwhelmingly for Edwards and Clinton, hardly any for Obama. Can you say “racial divide”, boys and girls?”

  That wasn’t true — Obama got considerably more than “hardly any”.

  In the thread immediately preceding this one you said, “You can’t tell a half truth - you can either tell the whole truth, or tell a lie.”

  How does that fit in the present context?

  With that “whole truth” comment firmly in mind, I remind you that in another recent comment you said, “And if a grainy picture of Rumsfeld with Saddam means that Saddam was a client of the United States, then this very clear picture of Bill and Hillary with Tony Rezko must mean that Hillary helped Rezko out in every aspect of his life, especially the corrupt bits…”

  Do you really think that must be what it means? Or is that a half truth?

  In a thread previous to that one you suggested that a bank robber could claim some sort of “health exception” on the same grounds that a woman could claim a “health exception” for a late term abortion. And that was after suggesting in a previous thread that women who seek abortions are largely victims of circumstance. There seems to be a considerable amount of circular reasoning involved there.

  Further, in the same “bank robber” thread, you added, “And, also, you can’t have democracy without Catholicism - and you really should sit down for a while a think about that. Its the absolute, indisputable truth…”

  Maybe it’s just me, but I’m pretty sure I could contemplate all the possible connections for a week — I could think about how the roots of democracy were laid in Greece several centuries before Christianity existed, I could think about the Ottoman’s incursion into Balkan Europe and its effect on altering the traditional silk and spice trade route, the effect of that on the emergence of an alternative mercantile class that weren’t so heavily dominated by the Medicis and their cohorts, I could think about how that might have had an effect on the Protestant reformation, I could think about how that might have had an effect on the Enlightenment period, and it’s effect on the rise of nationalism and the kernels of the thoughts of liberty, and how that kernel was transplanted to the the largely Protestant New World. And in all that time and in all that thought I don’t think I would come up with the conclusion that it’s an indisputable, absolute truth that democracy is not possible without Catholicism. I’m not saying that Catholicism is antithetical to democracy, I’m just saying that the conclusion that Catholicism is a necessary condition for it is not inescapable. In fact, it seems kind of simplistic to me.

  Then, when a commenter took you to task on the bank robber and Catholicism quips, you responded by saying of him, “You’re a bit too much of “brick wall” intellectually, and I don’t have much a mind to keep butting my head up against it.” I’m feeling a little numb in the head myself. But not because of what that commenter said. It’s more because your line of thought isn’t at all obvious.

  However, I think the crowning absurdity was your statement that something illegal can’t happen because, well, it would be illegal — the so-called Noonan Doctrine. That tickled me. But a common thread, and one that seems to have become more and more ascendent in your thoughts of late, is the sometimes implicit, sometimes explicit, and increasingly arrogant assumption that because you’ve been actively educating yourself (which is a good thing), you have become something of an indisputable authority on all sorts of things. And that’s a bad thing. And it is especially bad considering the nonsense inherent in your recent comments, and your inability or disinclination to respond to those that point it out.

  I like you Mark, but I’m beginning to wonder how you manage to get your head through the door. And that’s not a good thing.

• 20. phnx  |  January 27th, 2008 at 6:59 am

  Leftists get a grip. Take a look at the breakdown of the white vote. Its divided along age and gender lines.

  Blacks for Obama
  Young whites (under 40)for Obama
  Women over 50 for Hillary
  White men for Edwards

  What does this mean? Your party has a race, gender and age problem. Instead of focusing on issues the Clintons have successfully gotten this to be a mudslinging contest.

  Its gonna get uglier and Hillary is bound to win because they invented the politics of personal destruction. Bill is quoted this morning as comparing Obama to Jesse Jackson. Do you think he meant this as a compliment?

  Those Southern white male Dem voters over 40 will never vote for Obama.

  Burn the bra women are solidly for Hillary no matter what.

  But when Hillary wins by deamonizing Obama, it will turn off blacks and the young voters he has brought out…setting the stage for another Republican win.

  You guys shoot yourselves in the foot again.

  BBBwwwaahahahahahahaha!!!

  Despite the altruistic wishes of the young, and the

  Hillary gets the
  Obama has been very successful in

• 21. plainjane  |  January 27th, 2008 at 8:00 am

  Sounds like BfV is warming up its race baiting machine in preparation for the fall election, should Obama get the nod.

  I just think it is a beautiful thing Democrats have put up diverse candidates who all hold true to Democratic principals. Democrats will support who ever gets the nod.

  What are the Republicans offering? A collection of misfits tearing the Republican Party apart.
  All except Paul would do Iraq over again given the same data, and all would embrace big government spending with no means other than borrowing to pay for it?

• 22. neocon  |  January 27th, 2008 at 9:14 am

  Jane,

  Again your comment has no basis in fact. Democrats have emotionally given the nod to two of the most unqualified members withing their ranks simply because of race and gender. There is almost zero difference between Hillary and Obama in the manner in which they would govern. They are propped up by Democrats because of who they are, not what they have accomplished or what they stand for. The only diversity the represent is racial and/or gender groups. Exactly the way Democrats view America.

• 23. Almiranta  |  January 27th, 2008 at 11:06 am

  Hey, don’t blame Mark because the Dems have started playing their game of divide and conquer among themselves instead of waiting till they could use it against the GOP.

  Oprah Winfrey loved Hillary Clinton so passionately it was a little creepy. Suddenly she is supporting Barack Obama. Does anyone really think it is because of anything other than his color?

  Look at Barack’s campaign style, look at his oration style. It is so clearly and obviously taken from the stylebooks of black churches and the style of MLK, it is almost a parody. Is this an effort to become president because of his qualifications, and by the way he is black, or an effort to become president BECAUSE he is black?

  Have you looked at the web site of his church? It is “unashamedly Christian” and “unashamedly black”. ????????????? If a church was “unashamedly white” there would be hell to pay, yet this divisiveness, racism, and play to racial identity is just fine in this case.

  I would not hesitate for vote for a black person for president, but it would have to be because this was the best person for the job, and oh by the way s/he is a person of color. Big whoop. It’s the credentials that count—or should be.

  Don’t kill Mark the messenger here. He is reporting what others have been commenting on all along. It wasn’t Mark who went on national TV and announced, over and over again for weeks, that Barack should do well in NC because of its high number of black voters—no, that racist comment has come from practically every political pundit in any medium.

  Not only is Barack running AS a black man (as Hillary sometimes runs AS a woman and Huckabee AS a Christian) his own party has been working the racial divide for all it’s worth, doing what it can to widen it and define it and make it more and more signficant. OK, the official party may not have been doing this, but the de facto leader of the party, ol’ Bill hisself, sure has. On his own? Or do ya think maybe he is doing this for the Little Woman?

  The inherent problem in identity politics is that once you establish yourself as one specific identity, you run the risk of losing support from people who do not share that identity. If Mark were to note that Hillary lost much of the male vote because of her concentration on running AS a woman, he would not be sexist, but would be commenting on a phenomenon. Big deal.

  What is finally bubbling its way into the American consciousness is that one of the main differences between the two main parties is that Dems see people in terms of groups, as pointed out by neocon, and Republicans see them as individuals.

  And as this becomes more and more clear, more and more Americans will realize that this is just a manifestation of the Socialist collective mentality in general. The choice may become a choice not between higher and lower taxes, for example, but between maintaing the stubborn individualism of the American or giving it over to group-think and membership in the collective.

  As an old Star Trek fan, I am always reminded of the Borg, and of the person resecued from the Borg by the Enterprise, whose identity had become, upon her assimilation into the Borg, only Seven of Nine. When the radical Lefties start telling us how they will impose this or that upon us, and how they will continue to divide us into groups so we cannot interact as individuals, I keep hearing in the background “RE SIS TANCE IS FU TILE”.

• 24. FmrMarine  |  January 27th, 2008 at 4:48 pm

  bret
  Love your mere mention of you being ….black. That type of ascertain is usually a veiled warning, mostly used in the workplace much like mentioning being “gay” to let one know they are facing an opponent who wields power.
  You proved that by banging out the “dreaded” NIGGER word hoping someone would take the bait.
  Then you could point out how racist we are on the conservative side.
  As for the racial make up of ANY party, it is an individuals choice, if blacks chose to be led by depraved marxist’s, so be it, dont blame the republican party for an individuals poor choice.

  Here is what your wonderful hussein believes ….tell me THIS is not racist. Imagine if a white candidate belonged to an organization who spewed this garbage out.

  Trinity United Church of Christ
  About Us
  We are a congregation which is Unashamedly Black and Unapologetically Christian… Our roots in the Black religious experience and tradition are deep, lasting and permanent. We are an African people, and remain “true to our native land,” the mother continent, the cradle of civilization. God has superintended our pilgrimage through the days of slavery, the days of segregation, and the long night of racism. It is God who gives us the strength and courage to continuously address injustice as a people, and as a congregation. We constantly affirm our trust in God through cultural expression of a Black worship service and ministries which address the Black Community.
  Trinity United Church of Christ adopted the Black Value System written by the Manford Byrd Recognition Committee chaired by Vallmer Jordan in 1981. We believe in the following 12 precepts and covenantal statements. These Black Ethics must be taught and exemplified in homes, churches, nurseries and schools, wherever Blacks are gathered. They must reflect on the following concepts:
  1. Commitment to God
  2. Commitment to the Black Community
  3. Commitment to the Black Family
  4. Dedication to the Pursuit of Education
  5. Dedication to the Pursuit of Excellence
  6. Adherence to the Black Work Ethic
  7. Commitment to Self-Discipline and Self-Respect
  8. Disavowal of the Pursuit of “Middleclassness”
  9. Pledge to make the fruits of all developing and acquired skills available to the Black Community
  10. Pledge to Allocate Regularly, a Portion of Personal Resources for Strengthening and Supporting Black Institutions
  11. Pledge allegiance to all Black leadership who espouse and embrace the Black Value System
  12. Personal commitment to embracement of the Black Value System.

• 25. FmrMarine  |  January 27th, 2008 at 4:53 pm

  for a side note
  I would support C.Powell for president,
  I would support C.Rice for president,
  I support C.Thomas as a supreme court justice.
  I supporter A. Keyes when he ran for the senate.

  There are many black republicans who share our values, one day maybe one of them will CHOOSE to run for president., when they do we as a party will support them.

• 26. phnx  |  January 28th, 2008 at 1:21 pm

  Rico,

  I am also disappointed in your comments, for example:

  “Think about it — can even YOU say who black Republicans voted overwhelming for? I doubt it. Why? Because no one reports on it. Why? Because, unfortunately, it’s a demographic few in the Republican party care about. ”

  This is wrong on so many levels.

  1. Since when did the Republicans control what the MSM did?
  2. Since when did the MSM report anything that Republicans cared about.
  3. Why is it even important? Its you on the left who can’t seem to look beyond race, gender, age and sexual preference.
  4. Its you on the left who insist on segmenting the electorate on the basis of “interest groups” so that your candidates can pander to them.
  5. Whatever happened to the Democrat’s belief in MLK’s dream of judging a man on the content of his character instead of the color of his skin?

  ” I would argue that the Republicans have invested themselves equally heavily in divisive politics, although its complexion is different. I’ve already mentioned that security conservatives, social conservatives, and fiscal conservatives can’t seem to get along. ”

  What’s wrong with this??? These are ISSUES, that’s what the primary is supposed to be about. It not supposed to revolve around RACE and GENDER like the Dems have made it. Once the candidate is chosen, those who can’t abide the stance on a particular issue may or may not vote. That’s far different than the consequence of a racial and gender divide. The bitterness of that fight will last for a long time.

  “Republicans have invested themselves in divisive politics by ignoring identity politics altogether.”

  So what do you suggest…that we pander to groups based on the race, sex, ethnicity and racial preference? Or should we just pit one against the other like you Dems do?

  “In an ideal society those things wouldn’t matter.”

  And I thought our goal was a more perfect world. Seems that you would rather not go there.

  Wasn’t it Obama that said, “there is not a White America and a Black America, but a United States of America”? I think he was suggesting that we move beyond race baiting politcs and focus on the issues that will define the future. That is where we would prefer the battle to be waged.

  But I doubt the Dems, and especially Bill and Hillary will allow that…after all they invented the politics of personal destruction. Its worked in the past. Why quit now?

• 27. Diane Tomlinson  |  January 28th, 2008 at 3:55 pm

  Has anyone wondered on the right if this whole Clinton campaign was a ruse to get their guy Barack elected? Hmmm . . .

Matt Margolis on Twitter