SC goes to Obama, Clinton loses black supporters...

[BabyPiNK_FL]

I'm black-I didn't vote for Obama
I'm a woman-I didn't vote for Clinton
I'm young-I didn't vote for Obama

I voted for Edwards in the primary-I am the rare glitch in the system as the news would have you believe.

I'm tired of the race issue, I'm tired of the pathetic bickering and frankly, I think Obama has lost his point for me (although originally I liked all three candidates).

Edwards for me, has been the only one making sense the entire time and I feel like everyone has ignored him because "Oh we can vote for a woman!" "Oh we can vote for a black! (Which makes me sad because his mom is white and obviously even though physically he's black it makes me so sad they he lost his non-descript "race" along the way because I know for me that my mother is so important in my life and I identify with her over my father primarily.)

I have lost so much hope for anything getting achieved during these next for years because people are being spoon-fed the hype. And now I'm REALLY afraid that Clinton may not win and we'll be stuck with Obama...and I REALLY do not want him leading my country (just me personally cos I know everyone else is apparently on the Obama train).

[LeslieAGD]

Originally Posted by BabyPiNK_FL

Obama has lost his point for me (although originally I liked all three candidates).

And now I'm REALLY afraid that Clinton may not win and we'll be stuck with Obama...and I REALLY do not want him leading my country (just me personally cos I know everyone else is apparently on the Obama train).

Ditto...I am NOT on the Obama train, and I don't understand why so many people are. I originally liked him, but I like him less and less the more he speaks. He's become the Democratic version of Giuliani...the media says Giuliani trys to use 9/11 in every sentence and doesn't say much else; for me, Obama says the word "change" in every sentence but never talks about how to accomplish anything.

[alum]

I think it will be a Clinton-Edwards ticket in the fall.

[skylark]

Originally Posted by LeslieAGD

Obama says the word "change" in every sentence but never talks about how to accomplish anything.

See I blame the media for the fact that it is virtually impossible to communicate a complex idea in this day and age on a news program or in a debate. It's all about spin and getting the sound byte.

I try not to rely on the media clips and often meaningless "debates" to educate myself on a candidates ability to have a plan, and I don't expect a candidate to find a way to give me a dumbed down version of it in the news. I read Barack's last book when it came out and prior to that I read (okay listened to the audio-version of) Hillary's book. I primarily judge them on the ideas they expressed there than from any media clip, so maybe that is why I'm less concerned as to why I haven't audibly heard Barack's plans for change. I've read about how he's changed Illinois politics and what large and small steps he'd like to see the country take. I hear his speeches in that context... not in the context of wanting him to explain himself.

However, I do think there is something to be said for the power to inspire. If you can inspire the american people, that is a huge momentum for accomplishing change. We've had many capable leaders (Dubya excluded) that have been uninspired. I honestly think that America needs someone who stands for principles and that is why I stand behind Barack so strongly. I honestly don't think Hillary stands for anything but the unbridled thirst for power and the willingness to do anything to get it.

[skylark]

Originally Posted by alum

I think it will be a Clinton-Edwards ticket in the fall.

See I'm not so sure Edwards will be so quick to do the VP-run, although I'd love to see him in it. As a VP, I could see him taking on a single issue (namely, health care) and doing great things for reform.

[BabyPiNK_FL]

Edwards says he's still going for the gold so I don't see him bowing out just yet. I feel so bad for him because people usually act as if he's not a contendor!
I remember watching a clip from (what I believe is either an interview with all three or the debate) and Obama says we have a woman, a black, and John. WTF!? Well at least people can refer to him by his name and not by a category!
Have we not reached beyond this point? Apparently not...as a woman, you're a vajayjay and breasts and as a black person you're a big 'ol pile of brown skin. I was so excited that I would have a 3 great choices, then I was confused because yes, there was the whole gender race issue for me as a young black woman, but now I just want someone who can see beyond right now and I feel like Edwards and Clinton have overall been doing a better job, although I think the media is doing a lot to affect perceptions with Obama. I'm also very concerned regarding the media and the black community with this election.

[LeslieAGD]

Originally Posted by alum

I think it will be a Clinton-Edwards ticket in the fall.

I don't know about that...maybe Clinton-Richardson?

[scbelle]

Originally Posted by skylark

See I blame the media for the fact that it is virtually impossible to communicate a complex idea in this day and age on a news program or in a debate. It's all about spin and getting the sound byte.

I try not to rely on the media clips and often meaningless "debates" to educate myself on a candidates ability to have a plan, and I don't expect a candidate to find a way to give me a dumbed down version of it in the news. I read Barack's last book when it came out and prior to that I read (okay listened to the audio-version of) Hillary's book. I primarily judge them on the ideas they expressed there than from any media clip, so maybe that is why I'm less concerned as to why I haven't audibly heard Barack's plans for change. I've read about how he's changed Illinois politics and what large and small steps he'd like to see the country take. I hear his speeches in that context... not in the context of wanting him to explain himself.

However, I do think there is something to be said for the power to inspire. If you can inspire the american people, that is a huge momentum for accomplishing change. We've had many capable leaders (Dubya excluded) that have been uninspired. I honestly think that America needs someone who stands for principles and that is why I stand behind Barack so strongly. I honestly don't think Hillary stands for anything but the unbridled thirst for power and the willingness to do anything to get it.

I completely agree with you re: the media and debates and sound bytes. It is very hard to distill what ANY of the candidates plan for the country based on what's shown or printed in the news. Also, I would add that generally speaking, inspirational, creative, more poetic people, like Barack clearly is, have a harder time expressing ideas in the concrete. Abstractions are more comfortable.

Based on what I've read on his website and blogs concerning him, his lack of definitive plans don't really scare me. It makes me think that he is the real deal and will be able to work across the aisle, building coalitions and really get things done in Washington. A Clinton presidency guarantees more gridlock. But I really do believe that if she's the nominee, that we will have another Republican president. She's THAT offensive to quite a few Repubs, independents, and yes, even people in her own party.

I think now that Caroline Kennedy and her uncle Ted are coming out for Obama, people who will be voting in coming days will give Obama another look.

[DSTCHAOS]

Originally Posted by a.e.B.O.T.

Obama dominated the black vote but likewise diminished among white voters greatly. This is being covered everywhere, but it is sort of annoying that there is such a focus on this.

Didn't take a psychic to see this coming.

[AKA_Monet]

Originally Posted by Drolefille

If the Obama wins the popular delegate vote and the party still chooses Clinton, the Democrats will LOSE.

No truer words...

Originally Posted by AGDee

Each state has different rules. In some, the winner in the primary gets all the delegates. In some, the delegates are split according to the voting percentages. Some separate it even further and the delegates are split by the voting percentages but only if a delegate has attained a certain percentage of the votes, otherwise they go as "uncommitted" (like here in MI). It's pretty complicated and is determined by each states' parties. CNN has a list of how many delegates are needed to get the nomination and have a good breakdown of available delegates. Some states also have pre-set delegates or super delegates and it's all really bizarre, actually.

Do you have this link?

Originally Posted by nittanyalum

The Democratic format can get really complicated, it's not just the raw # of votes over the whole state, it actually depends on WHERE in the state the votes come from and how many delegates different districts are worth.

This page has one of the clearer breakdowns: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main...wuspols627.xml

My state's primaries are coming up and we are asking my Sorority Sisters to attend the caucuses. I need a good explanation as to why they should... We are attempting to promote more involvement in the "behind the scenes" political process besides voter registration and education.

[AGDee]

Originally Posted by AKA_Monet

No truer words...



Do you have this link?

http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/

[Drolefille]

New York Times does a good job as well, and doesn't assign the delegates until they're truly assigned, most of the states that have voted so far have NOT assigned delegates yet.

Btw, for those who would like to know what Obama actually intends to do, check out the website. He's not all talk no plans/action. Having done so myself I still agree with him over the other Democratic candidates above and beyond my non-issue based preferences.

[Wolfman]

Originally Posted by DSTCHAOS

Didn't take a psychic to see this coming.

There's something more going on here. The Obama candidacy is shaping up to change the African American political landscape. In South Carolina (and other states) the Clinton's used the traditional strategy of machine politics, "buying" the endorsements of black ministers and using black surrogates like Bob Johnson, believing that African Americans would fall in lock step like a pack of lemmings. In contrast, the Obama campaign was truly an innovative grassroots operation, utilizing the existent political and social networks in the African American community--it was a real movement!This is what I heard from someone with deep roots in SC politics, right there in the Low Country, who was really impressed with the Obama campaign there.

As a commentator said on a Black public affairs radio show last night in NYC, this has the potential of dethroning the old guard civil rights "leaders" who operate under the patronage system to white politicians in the Democratic Party by circumventing any sway they may have as influential political arbiters. This portends the end of "plantation politics."

[33girl]

Originally Posted by BabyPiNK_FL

I'm tired of the pathetic bickering

Yep. They said much the same on Meet the Press yesterday. Which will end up with Edwards getting the nomination and losing.

See: 1968

[BabyPiNK_FL]

Boy...it looks like all the Democrats here are already down and out! I want Edwards but he'll lose to the Rep. I want Clinton, but she'll lose to the Rep. I want Obama, but he'll lose to the Rep. Damn! Why don't we all just start voting for McCain! LOL! I honestly feel (or at least hope with all my might) that we will have a Dem. president.
I just think that it is going to be a fight to the death to figure out who that will be.
At least we can feel thankful that even while we're debating which candidates, many Rep. are still between at least three as well. It's not completely all one way. Let's take some solace in that.