Notebook: South Carolina primary

I volunteered as a voter protection attorney for the Obama campaign in South Carolina yesterday. Here are a few notes from the weekend:

Friday night:

My goal was to make it down to Florence by 6:20 pm, when Sen. Obama was slated to speak at the city's convention center. I had known for a couple weeks that I was assigned to Darlington County, near Florence, but I didn't find out until Thursday that Sen. Obama was going to be speaking there the same night I was planning on driving down. So I resisted the temptation to stop and visit my family in Raleigh on the way down (and the temptation to stop at South of the Border, though I did visit Pedro, et. al. on the way home). By ten to six, I was waiting in line outside the Florence Convention Center. It was a lot colder than I had expected it to be, and the thing I kept hearing parents tell their kids in line was that the wait in the cold was worth it because "this is something you'll be able to tell your grandkids about."

There were several people selling buttons, and the one that stood out was a big green button with a shamrock that read "Irish-Americans for Obama." (I thought to myself that I should modify one to say "Scotch-Irish Americans for Obama," to help promote my Barack Obama-Jim Webb dream ticket, but more on that in another post).

Once we got inside, the room filled up pretty quickly, and the different parts of the crowd began to compete with each other in chants of "Fired Up! Ready to Go!" (which I later realized has become a semi-official Obama chant). When Obama came on, he seemed a little tired at first, and I worried that his speech might not match the crowd's anticipation. Within a couple minutes, he proved me wrong, and gave a typically moving speech.

Saturday morning/day:

I was assigned to a polling location in Hartsville, which is about 20 miles northwest of Florence, in Darlington County. I left the hotel in Florence around 6:15 AM, in order to get there before the precincts opened at 7:00. On the way to the old high school gym that would serve as the polling location, I passed the world-famous Darlington Speedway, although it was still too dark to really see the whole thing.

The chapel of a Hartsville funeral home served as the Obama campaign's headquarters in the town. As soon as I walked in, the local campaign director asked me to help him move a long, heavy table with rollers on its legs. "Oh, is this? . . ." I paused. He finished my thought: "Yeah, this is one of the things you move a coffin around on!"

We laughed, but starting the day off in a chapel lent a sense of seriousness to the morning, and although no one was going to point it out, the painting of "The Last Supper" with a black Jesus and black disciples underscored the historic nature of Obama's campaign. It reminded me of an argument I had gotten into with someone in DC a few months before, when I had said that to Martin Luther King, politics and faith were one in the same. She had said something like "Martin Luther King was about social justice - don't bring religion into this." I grabbed a handful of honey buns and Nabs from the huge Sam's box on the front pew, and as I headed down the aisle, I wondered if she would say that to the folks around here.

Darlington County is roughly 44% black, and I would guess that the precincts comprising my polling location were 80-90% black. Predominately black precincts have often been the target of voter intimidation/suppression tactics, including the illegal use of challenges. In South Carolina, one's right to vote can be challenged by poll watchers representing a campaign, or even by another voter (typically a challenge would be on the grounds of one's registration in the precinct, age, or some other similar requirement). One can imagine how the challenge process can get ugly, but fortunately, there were no major reports of intimidation, at my precincts or in the primary overall (the second page of this article discusses this in the context of the primary).

Shortly after the precincts closed, the early exit polls were indicating that there was a huge turnout, and that things looked good for Obama. The big question I had was whether white South Carolinians would hold up their end of the bargain. Some of the polls leading up to the primary had projected that Obama would get as little as 10% of the white vote, which would allow the Clintons to frame an Obama win as being merely the result of racial bloc voting (see the Dick Morris article predicting this tactic). Regardless of how anyone tries to spin it, one thing I noticed over the course of the weekend was that almost all of the black volunteers I spoke to were as excited about Obama's ability to transcend race as they were about the fact that he is black.

By the time I got back to the funeral home, media outlets were reporting that Obama had done better than expected among white voters, especially young whites. We started doing the math: 80% of the black vote means about 40% of the total primary vote, and 25% of the white vote meant another 12-13% of the primary vote. This was starting to sound like a landslide!

Saturday night:

Several of us met up with the regional Obama campaign staffers, who were celebrating the win at a bar in Florence. It was great to meet a lot of the people who had spearheaded the local campaign, and some other volunteers who had converged from all over (DC, Houston, NYC, etc.). I had a particularly interesting conversation with a campaign worker who had mentioned that she was Jewish. I brought up the recent skepticism in the media over whether Obama could gain the support of Jewish voters, to which she smiled and responded "Oh, don't worry about us!" To the contrary, she said, a number Obama's campaign staffers were Jewish, and she didn't anticipate any problems with gaining support among the Jewish community.

Sunday:

The first thing I did when I woke up was to Google "barbecue Florence SC" on my BlackBerry, and I got a bunch of recommendations for Rogers BBQ, where, as it turns out, John McCain had recently held a fundraiser. I definitely recommend their buffet, especially their unique bitter-tasting, burgundy-colored pork barbecue, which is like nothing I've ever tasted. Based on subsequent research, it appears that the barbecue had been cooked in a vinegar-and-pepper sauce, which is common in the Pee Dee area of SC, but not North of the Border (I'm primarily an Eastern North Carolina BBQ fan).

As I headed back up to DC, I realized I didn't have an Obama sticker on my car, and I was seeing so many Obama and Clinton folks on I-95 that I felt had to join in and show my colors. So when I took at pit stop at South of the Border, I taped a "Stand For Change" sign I had gotten at the rally to my rear passenger-side door window (see picture). Obama's win in South Carolina was something I'll never forget, and I have a feeling I'll be telling stories about how I was there for a long, long time.

Clinton claims victory?!

I can't believe Hillary is claiming a victory in a state in which none of the Democratic candidates campaigned! Almost every single day, the Clintons do something that pushes me further toward the conclusion that I will not vote for her if she ends up being the Democratic candidate (and by the way, at least half of the Democrats I've talked to lately feel the same way). Shameless . . .

UPDATED 1/30/08:

Josh Marshall suspects that the Clinton campaign "didn't get as much juice out of this as they wanted or expected"; Extreme Mortman adds that "It all depends on what the definition of pledge is."

Coalition carries Obama to SC win

I just got back from Darlington County, South Carolina, where I was volunteering for the Obama campaign. I'll write more about the whole weekend later, but for now, I wanted to mention how impressed I was by the range of people Obama was able to bring together. Support from black voters, which was augmented by huge turnout in heavily African-American counties, was the most important factor in his victory. Seventy-eight percent of black voters supported Obama, which was much higher than most polls had predicted.

But his success among white voters was impressive as well. Obama received 24% of the white vote, compared to 40% for Edwards and 36% for Clinton. This was better than expected, since some polls from during the week predicted that he'd get around 10% of the white vote. And 52% of white voters under 30 chose Obama, compared to 27% for Clinton and 21% for Edwards.

Finally, though this last observation is completely speculative, I got the feeling over the weekend that Obama won despite having much less name recognition among the general electorate than Clinton (and possibly Edwards, who won the state's 2004 primary). For example, when I got the receipt for my hotel room, the Obama campaign's group rate discount was noted as "BARAKABAMA." Everyone agrees that Obama's personality is one of his greatest strengths; I wonder if he could have done even better with more time to woo voters.

SC Exit polls [CNN]

The State endorses Obama

Today, the editorial board of South Carolina's biggest newspaper, The State, endorsed Barack Obama in the Democratic primary. I imagine that the growing list of "red state" and swing state Democrats who have endorsed Obama - which includes Arizona Governor Janet Napolitano, Nebraska Senator Ben Nelson, and Missouri Senator Claire McCaskill - would agree with the paper's rationale:

The restoration of the Clintons to the White House would trigger a new wave of all-out political warfare. That is not all Bill and Hillary’s fault - but it exists, whomever you blame, and cannot be ignored. Hillary Clinton doesn’t pretend that it won’t happen; she simply vows to persevere, in the hope that her side can win. Indeed, the Clintons’ joint career in public life seems oriented toward securing victory and personal vindication.

Sen. Obama’s campaign is an argument for a more unifying style of leadership. In a time of great partisanship, he is careful to talk about winning over independents and even Republicans. He is harsh on the failures of the current administration - and most of that critique well-deserved. But he doesn’t use his considerable rhetorical gifts to demonize Republicans. He’s not neglecting his core values; he defends his progressive vision with vigorous integrity. But for him, American unity - transcending party - is a core value in itself.

Can such unity be restored, in this poisonous political culture? Not unless that is a nominee’s goal from the outset. It will be a difficult challenge for any candidate; but we wait in the hope that someone really will try. There is no other hope for rescuing our republic from the mire.

Sen. Obama would also have the best chance to repair the damage to America’s global reputation. A leader with his biography - including his roots in Africa and his years spent growing up overseas - could transform the world’s view of America. He would seize that opportunity.

He would close the prison camp at Guantanamo Bay, which has damaged America’s moral standing, and strive to rebuild many diplomatic relationships.

Despite America’s bitter partisan divide, all sides should agree on this: In such an environment, little gets done. Congress has been largely useless under both Republican and Democratic leadership. Setting aside the ideological conflict for conflict’s sake to get anything worthwhile done has fallen severely out of fashion.

And America certainly has things to get done.

From terrorism and climate change to runaway federal entitlement spending, there are big challenges to be faced. Sen. Obama is the only Democrat who plausibly can say that he wants to work with Americans across the political spectrum to address such subjects - and he has the integrity and the skills of persuasion that make him the best-qualified among the remaining Democratic hopefuls to address these challenges.

He would be a groundbreaking nominee. More to the point, he makes a solid case that he is ready to lead the whole country. We see Sen. Barack Obama as the best choice in Saturday’s Democratic primary.

"Obama most likely Democrat to unify America" [The State]

The elephant in the room

Regardless of who you believe started it, this week's battle between the Obama and Clinton camps over race, and their quick declaration of a truce, suggests that neither candidate is going to benefit much from making it an issue, or from accusing the other one of making it an issue.

Yet the controversy also served as a reminder that, even if Obama wants to downplay the significance of his ethnicity, it is never far from voters' minds. And for all the talk of Obama being a "post-racial" candidate, I think he would be the first to admit that his ethnic background, and the way he deals with it in his campaign, are huge parts of his mystique.

On Friday, Obama learned that there's a similar danger zone when it comes to talking about Hillary Clinton. And no, I'm not talking about gender, although making references to Clinton being a woman would probably backfire the same way the Clinton campaign's comments about race have.

Instead, the off-limits topic Obama broached was the state of the Democratic Party during the last fifteen years, with is closely tied to Bill Clinton's legacy as President. In an interview with a Nevada newspaper, Obama espoused a view that is common among Democratic strategists: the argument that one reason the GOP has been successful over the last two decades has been that it has been the "party of ideas."

That term doesn't connote approval of any specific ideas - it just means that one party is seen as having more big ideas at a given point in time. In the Republican Party's case, many of its successful policy ideas have simply been cutting back on some form of federal taxation or spending (e.g. - ending "the Death Tax"). And if one reads the controversial quote, Obama actually criticized some of those ideas:

"I think [John] Kennedy, twenty years earlier, moved the country in a fundamentally different direction. So I think a lot of it just has to do with the times. I think we’re in one of those times right now. Where people feel like things as they are going aren’t working. We’re bogged down in the same arguments that we’ve been having, and they’re not useful. And, you know, the Republican approach, I think, has played itself out. I think it’s fair to say the Republicans were the party of ideas for a pretty long chunk of time there over the last ten, fifteen years, in the sense that they were challenging conventional wisdom. Now, you’ve heard it all before. You look at the economic policies when they’re being debated among the Presidential candidates and it’s all tax cuts. Well, you know, we’ve done that, we tried it."

In that same context, Obama also mentioned Ronald Reagan as a major "change agent," which, along with the "party of ideas" quote, has given his rivals the perfect opening to attack his calls for a bipartisan approach as being too GOP-friendly.

Clinton said:

"My leading opponent the other day said that he thought the Republicans had better ideas than Democrats the last 10 to 15 years. That's not the way I remember the last 10 to 15 years. I don't think it's a better idea to privatize Social Security. I don't think it's a better idea to try to eliminate the minimum wage. I don't think it's a better idea to undercut health benefits and to give drug companies the right to make billions of dollars by providing prescription drugs to Medicare recipients. I don't think it's a better idea to shut down the government, to drive us into debt. I think we know what needs to be done in America and I think we're ready to do it. I'm ready to lead on day one." [MSNBC]

The Reagan quote is probably even more helpful for the Edwards campaign on the eve of a Nevada primary, where unions will wield a heavy influence:

"When you think about what Ronald Reagan did to the American people, to the middle class to the working people," said Edwards.

"He was openly – openly – intolerant of unions and the right to organize. He openly fought against the union and the organized labor movement in this country. He openly did extraordinary damage to the middle class and working people, created a tax structure that favored the very wealthiest Americans and caused the middle class and working people to struggle every single day. The destruction of the environment, you know, eliminating regulation of companies that were polluting and doing extraordinary damage to the environment."

"I can promise you this: this president will never use Ronald Reagan as an example for change." [CBS News]

The lessons for the Obama campaign are 1) that he should leave the Reagan comparisons to commentators like Andrew Sullivan, and 2) that the 80's and 90's are a delicate topic for Democrats.

On one hand, most people would agree that Bill Clinton's major policies were often compromises with the Republican majority in Congress (like welfare reform, which I think was necessary, and NAFTA, which I'm not so sure about). Many Democrats have even complained that their party needed new ideas to stay competitive, and ceded that the Republicans were winning in the "new ideas" department. However, this isn't a policy seminar at the Brookings Institute. On the campaign trail, Obama can't call Reagan a "change agent" and take a swipe at the Clinton years in the same speech without offending some Democratic primary voters.

To most Democrats, the Clinton years were the good old days compared to the Bush years, and this election is more about getting things back to normal than trying to blaze a "fundamentally different path." Talk of the latter comes across as somewhat unrealistic, and if Reagan's going to be any sort of a model, undesirable.

"Hillary blasts Obama over 'ideas' remark" [MSNBC]
"Edwards jabs Obama and Clinton" [CBS News]

Robinson on Clinton's race gambit

In a column in today's Washington Post, Eugene Robinson picks up on the same strategy I detected in the string of vaguely racially insensitive comments the Clinton camp made over the weekend. The basic argument is that Hillary realized that black voters were going to flock to Obama now that he's proven he can garner mainstream white support; thus, instead of courting those voters, she tried to gain support among white voters by attempting to bait Obama into playing the race card (which, as I pointed out, is one of the most serious accusations one can make in post-OJ Simpson trial America).

In her "Meet The Press" appearance on Sunday, Clinton did just that, accusing Obama of "deliberately distorting" her MLK comment, and "injecting race" into the debate, even though the complaints had been from neutral bystanders like House Majority Whip James Clyburn, and the Obama campaign had not even responded to the controversy as of Sunday morning, when Clinton appeared on the television show (later that day, Obama called the comment "ill-advised").

Since my post on the topic yesterday, a new poll found that black voters are in fact abandoning Clinton for Obama rapidly, and now support the latter by a ratio of 2-to-1. While that certainly doesn't prove the theory that Clinton was trying to force Obama to play the race card, the new data does help support my assertions that Hillary might be ceding the black vote to Obama, and that she desperately needs to shore up support among white voters (who are also moving towards Obama, though at a slower rate) to make up the difference.

Robinson compares the strategic value of Hillary's attempt to bait Obama into playing the race card to that of her husband's criticism of Sister Souljah's controversial comments during the 1992 Los Angeles riots (which, unlike anything Obama's done in this situation, warranted criticism, though the context and timing made it embarrassingly obvious what Clinton was trying to do):

The episode demonstrated that Clinton was not only tough on lawlessness but also willing to challenge "special interests" -- in this case, black activists.

The Clintons are reading the polls, too; they might well be resigned to the possibility that most black Democrats will vote for Obama. This would mean that South Carolina is probably already lost and that the campaign's focus now has to be on Florida and the many states whose delegates are up for grabs on "Tsunami Tuesday."

Is it possible that accusing Obama and his campaign of playing the race card might create doubt in the minds of the moderate, independent white voters who now seem so enamored of the young, black senator? Might that be the idea?

Yes, that's a cynical view. But history is history.

Last night, Obama called for a cooling-off between the two campaigns on the race controversy, and Clinton followed with a similar statement an hour later. I genuinely hope that the Clinton campaign drops these tactics immediately, because as Matt Bai points out, Bill and Hillary Clinton's legacies are at risk of being permanently tarnished. I thought Bill Clinton was a very good president overall, and I've always had a lot of respect for Bill and Hillary Clinton, even though I'm not pulling for her in the primaries this year. That's why I've been so shocked by the Clinton campaign's tactics during the last week - and that's why I hope we've seen the last of that kind of campaigning during the primaries.

Eugene Robinson: "A Hand the Clintons Aren't Showing" [Washington Post]
My original post: "Is Hillary playing the reverse race card?" [outragedmoderates.org]
Matt Bai: "The Clintons and History" [New York Times]

Is Hillary playing the reverse race card?

At first, the string of vaguely racially insensitive comments coming from the Clinton camp seemed like ham-fisted mistakes. Why would Hillary Clinton make that awkward comment about Martin Luther King and Lyndon Johnson, which infuriated much of the black political establishment? Why would Bill Clinton say that Hillary is tougher than Nelson Mandela? Why would Andrew Cuomo say that Obama wouldn't be able to "shuck and jive" at press conferences? And most peculiarly, why would these seasoned political vets (including Bill Clinton, who was so well-liked among black voters that some called him "the first black president") make all these awkward comments right before the South Carolina primary, where 50% of registered Democrats are black?

After Hillary's press conference yesterday, I can't help but think that her strategy is to provoke the Obama camp into complaining about racism, using comments that stop just short of being unquestionably offensive as gambits to draw a response from Obama. Then, when Obama responds, Clinton can claim that Obama is playing the "race card" - which is one of the easiest ways to galvanize white voters' support. (I'm not the first to make this argument - a Talking Points Memo post comes to the same conclusion, and that blog's bewilderment over Hillary's racial comments has made for great reading all week.)

What about the black vote, you ask? I think Hillary is starting to write off the black vote, realizing that the main reason for black voters' hesitation about Obama has been the fear that he can't get enough support from whites. So the fact that the MLK-Lyndon Johnson comment may offend some blacks is no longer as relevant to her - and if she can use the ensuing fracas to claim that Obama is playing the race card, the gain in support among white voters (in SC, Nevada, and the rest of the country) will make up for the impending drop in support among blacks.

Sure enough, on "Meet the Press" yesterday, Clinton accused Obama's campaign of "injecting race" into the campaign, and "deliberately distorting" the MLK comment - in other words, of playing the race card, which is one of the most serious accusations one can make in post-OJ Simpson trial America. Maybe my instincts are wrong, and the Clintons are just being uncharacteristically naïve all of a sudden.

But as someone who grew up in North Carolina during the Jesse Helms days, there's no way I'm voting for Hillary if she keeps this up. (Clarification: I have already decided that I am pulling for Obama in the primaries - when I talk about whether I would vote for Hillary, I'm talking about the scenario where she wins the nomination.)

Clinton's Jan. 13 "Meet the Press Appearance" [MSNBC]
Gothamist round-up on the topic, with lots of links [Gothamist]

Sold on Obama

I've been a fan of Barack Obama's since his speech at the 2004 Democratic Convention, which prompted me to turn to my roommates and say: "This guy's going to be the first black president!"

But it wasn't until this week that I really believed he could win the 2008 election. As recently as one week ago, I was still hesitant: he's too young, he doesn't have enough experience, his middle name's Hussein, and he's black in a country that only has a few blacks in state-wide elected positions, and has never had a black president or vice president. While I personally have very liberal views about race, I'm also a Southerner who prides himself on being a realist, so I understand why many black Americans, including friends of mine I've discussed the elections with, are worried that the country isn't ready to elect a black president.

So when I say I'm sold on Obama, it is despite months and months of intense skepticism. And while it may seem counterintuitive, I think that's why I'm so excited about his candidacy. I've spent months waiting for Obama's initial luster to wear off; instead, he's convinced me that he is clearly the best choice to be our next president.

Obama's performances in Iowa and New Hampshire have convinced me not only that he is the most intelligent and charismatic candidate the two parties have to offer, but also that he is the only one who has a chance to unite post-9/11, post-Bush America. This country faces serious, serious challenges on almost every front, and I genuinely believe that the only way to successfully confront them will be getting beyond partisan politics.

Talk of "post-partisan" politics strikes a lot of older commentators as phony campaign speak. My response would be that those commentators just don't get it. Has any other candidate promised a coalition cabinet? More broadly, I genuinely believe that the two-party system will become a relic fairly soon, perhaps as soon as 2016 or 2020. Until then, I'm pulling for (and, on the weekends, volunteering for) Barack Obama.

Andrew Sullivan: "Goodbye to All That" [Atlantic]
"GOP Doubts, Fears 'Post-Partisan' Obama" [Washington Post]

(Speaking of Obama, Christopher Hitchens has written yet another bizarre column that begs the question: "Why on Earth is this guy being paid to write about American politics?!" Not only does Hitchens claim that Obama should not be considered black, but he also seems to have a problem with the fact that the Obamas attend a predominantly black church. Of course, the fact that they go to church at all probably offends Hitchens, in and of itself. But aside from Hitchens' atheist fundamentalism, does he really not understand why it is notable that the United States has its first black front-runner? Hitchens asks "why is a man with a white mother considered to be 'black,' anyway?" Is he really completely unaware of the fact that millions of biracial people were the victims of legally-sanctioned discrimination as "blacks" over most of the course of American history? If we were living in a vacuum where the past was completely irrelevant, maybe Hitchens would have a point; since we aren't, one has to wonder how a major columnist has such a deaf ear to the historical context.)