OK, I give up on this blog forever. It has hit the bottom.

"All these BLACK folks are gonna vote for Obama. I mean I don't think we, my wife...Hillary, I, we can't really be competitve in a state with so many BLACK voters. You understand what I mean. Obama is BLACK and alot of the voters here are BLACK. So when you have a BLACK guy running you just expect all the folks who are also BLACK to vote for him. It would be like that ANYWHERE."

That's the message the Clintons want the results of the South Carolina primary to send.

Can somebody tell me what John Edwards is still doing in this race (besides keeping HRC in first place)?

I don't mean the candidate any disrespect. I think he would have been the most electable and most progressive candidate, but realistically the contest is over. He's running at 15% in South Carolina and 10% nationally. If he couldn't win Iowa and/or South Carolina he can't win anywhere, barring any meltdown or emergency by one of the two main candidates.

Edwards needs to bow out gracefully next week or else he will hand this election to Mrs. Walmart on Super Tuesday.

You've got all of 46 posts on Salon and not one editor's choice. Now that's pretty poor. Somebody should send you a red star out of pity.

polls show Edwards at 17% and HRC at 20%, which with the MOE is a statistical dead heat.

Why should he drop out? There are no rules that someone with a voice and platform needs to drop out as long as he has money and support, which Edwards does.

Back in the day these things weren't decided after two primaries.

Which they hope you will run right out and spend at Wal-Mart.

That's interesting. I didn't know Communist China's economy needed kick-starting.

Pay down your credit card debt.

I’m not sure which poll you are looking at, but you might want to follow this link:

http://www.pollster.com/08-SC-Dem-Pres-Primary.php

You can see that this is an aggregation of the many polls (not just from one source) and by all estimations Edwards will come in 3rd in SC.

Certainly Edwards has a right to run, just as Nader did. My point is, I don’t think it is a good idea to continue the campaign as this point. Edwards cannot win and therefore must drop out and endorse Obama or else we can all buckle up for another losing presidential campaign by a DLC “Democrat”.

I don’t know how things were done “back in the day”, but these are the dynamics of our current situation.

Can somebody tell me what John Edwards is still doing in this race (besides keeping HRC in first place)?

No doubt.

Bill needs to shut up already.

please give us late-state primary voters a chance to influence the outcome of the primaries. I hope that Edwards and Kucinich stay in the race until the bitter end. One reason why we end up with such crappy nominees and such crappy government social policies is because of the anti-Democratic nature of the primary schedule.

The four first states - IA, NH, NV, SC, and keep in mind that only two were real primaries - send 6 GOP senators and 2 Democratic Senators to Washington; and they send 6 GOP representatives and 6 Democratic representatives. (And little NH has inflicted not one, but TWO John Sununus on the body politic. Not very impressive.) No wonder we can't get anything progressive done in Washington.

I was talking to a paid employee of the DNC last night (I serve on the financial committee of my local county Dem Party), and he simply couldn't believe that I refused to give money to the DNC. Voters need to hold the DNC and the RNC to account by refusing to raise or give money. It's the only thing these guys understand.

I don't know what to make of all the spin on the SC primary. Seems to me that Barack Obama won in Iowa and came close in New Hampshire, two states that are vastly majority white. At one point, there were questions about whether he'd enough support from the black community; now, some are labeling him the "black" candidate because he's getting support.

I suppose Hillary Clinton supporters are latching onto whatever seems to make things look best for Hillary, and maybe that's just how it works. But if such spin is taken seriously, it seems pretty silly to me, considering how support for Obama has shaped up so far.

And I'll say this: I'm a white guy in SC, and I'm planning to vote for Obama. Most of the white Democrats that I know here (not that there are very many) seem to be leaning toward Obama, too.

Here are the polling that is referred to:

http://zogby.com/news/ReadNews.dbm?ID=1433

If I was a MINORITY that has never had someone of my MINORITY in the white house and now there is a viable candidate who is of my MINORITY I just might lean in the direction of that MINORITY candidate just because he is of my long oppressed MINORITY.

What Bill said about Hillary and Obama geting votes due to their race or gender is accurate and realistic, if not idealistic.

America is not a color blind or gender blind society...yet. The whole tribal mentality thing still creates a lot of sore spots. There is hope. The country overall, not withstanding pockets of relapse, is getting closer. This election is proof.

Isn't that what everyone is saying? Ever since Clyburn, whom I respect for his past work, spun statements about experience into statements about race, that is how it is going to be. That may not help Obama in the long run, but that is what Clyburn has done. SC has made the politics of hope into the politics of race, when Clyburn essentially said that Obama should not be criticized for his lack or experience, becuase he is African-American.

As I have said before, I can understand why Clyburn feels that way. That has been an excuse for not hiring African-Americans in the past. I am not sure that he did the best thing in going public without talking to Clinton about it (as far as I know). Clinton may have been insensitive about Clyburn's take on it, but Clyburn was also insensitive to the effect of his statements and that Clinton would have never meant it the way he took it.