Landslide Understories
South Carolina was the first state to secede from the Union and still flies the Confederate Battle Flag on the statehouse grounds. South Carolina is Southern. South Carolina is Christian, conservative and still majority white. South Carolina was a bastion for the GOP and the Right.
Today, South Carolina cast its lot with a Black candidate for President.
Tonight, I’m awfully proud of the South.
Some opponents and cynics still will say, “Well, half of the Democrats were Black people, so he was bound to win.”
Here are the headlines:
Obama won by almost 30%, receiving about 50% of the vote from the Democratic primary.
Obama won 80% of the Black vote.
Here are the rich, deep, true, exhilarating notes for the night:
Obama won 55% of voters aged 45-59, HRC’s baliwick.
Now, watch this: With 99% reporting, 545,940 people in South Carolina voted in the Democratic primary, and half of them voted for Obama.
With 100% reporting last week, approximately 445,000 people in South Carolina voted in the Republican primary, handing John McCain a victory with 33%, a 3% margin of victory.
Did I mention this was in South Carolina?
In open primaries, more South Carolinians voted for Barack Obama than McCain and Huckabee combined, and they waited a week to do it.
History is afoot. Oh, Lord, do not pass us by.
Today, South Carolina cast its lot with a Black candidate for President.
Tonight, I’m awfully proud of the South.
Some opponents and cynics still will say, “Well, half of the Democrats were Black people, so he was bound to win.”
Here are the headlines:
Obama won by almost 30%, receiving about 50% of the vote from the Democratic primary.
Obama won 80% of the Black vote.
Here are the rich, deep, true, exhilarating notes for the night:
Obama won 55% of voters aged 45-59, HRC’s baliwick.
Now, watch this: With 99% reporting, 545,940 people in South Carolina voted in the Democratic primary, and half of them voted for Obama.
With 100% reporting last week, approximately 445,000 people in South Carolina voted in the Republican primary, handing John McCain a victory with 33%, a 3% margin of victory.
Did I mention this was in South Carolina?
In open primaries, more South Carolinians voted for Barack Obama than McCain and Huckabee combined, and they waited a week to do it.
History is afoot. Oh, Lord, do not pass us by.
posted by JRB at 9:09 PM
6 Comments:
Jeff, I don't really understand this line of thought.
Would it really be historically more significant to have our first black president (who is a male) rather than our first female president.
I think the latter is a much more important rubicon for this country to cross in terms of social equality since women--throughtout many areas of society (ex: corporate world, athletics, religion)--continue to realize fewer opportunities than black men.
I don't know what line of thought you're talking about.
My point here is that Obama trounced everyone, even Republicans, in an open primary in a white, conservative, Southern state, even winning more women than HRC.
I did not say or suggest and won't that electing an Black President is more important than electing a Woman, but it sure is more impressive in South Carolina.
South Carolina has historically had many fewer female elected officials than black male elected officials (though neither obviously come close to the number of white male elected officials).
I just get a sense from you and others that Obama is doing something more historical than what Hillary is doing (note: I'm not a supporter of HRC so this is not a support-driven observation).
Maybe I'm getting the wrong sense and, if so, I stand corrected.
However, in the big picture, I believe it would be much more historically-significant for our country to elect a female president than a male president who is black.
I don't know if we can empiricize the "signficance." I would note that the US would not be the first Western, industrialized democracy to elect a woman, Britain, Germany and others having beaten us there by decades. Goodness, even Pakistan and India beat us there by decades.
We would be the first Western, industrialized democracy to elect a minority candidate, one generation removed by immigration from the Third World, and only about three generations removed from involuntary servitude.
In American terms you are right. In global terms, Obama is something new.
I do not support Obama because of the historical signficance of the identity politics vis-a-vis HRC, but I must confess that I support either of them more than the White Guys, in some respects because of the significance, but certainly not completely.
Personally, a candidate's race or gender is at best a tie-breaker for me--something considered only after I've considered their positions and life experience--blind of any race or gender consideration.
This, of course, is not to say that I don't like to see our society progress in terms of opportunity. But, when it comes to the presidency, social progress yields for me. It's simply too important of a position to use as a gauge for promoting social opportunity.
In this election, I've finally decided to go with John McCain (and, I'll say, this NONE of the candidates truly inspired me) because I believe he has the best positions, coupled with the best life experience and track record needed to equip an individual for this unique job.
Now, in my book, if I felt the same about McCain and Obama (or Hillary), then I'd go with Obama or Hillary because of the tiebreaker.
This year though, I don't feel the same so I never even get to the issue of race or gender in my decision-making process.
That's fair. McCain is my favorite of the GOPs, and if the GOP must win, then I hope it's him.
Post a Comment
<< Home