Identity politics? Welcome to the Dark Side.

[Crossposted from Sugar Land is Dreaming]

Here's a snippet of data from last night's exit polls in South Carolina:


And would you look at that -- John Edwards is the candidate for whitey crackers! In fact, if that other white person weren't in the race, Edwards might have taken more than 70% of the white vote!

Of course, this isn't the narrative I heard last night after Obama's crushing victory in South Carolina. I heard it was a black thing. I was at work last night, then I went to a friends house for some beers and viewing of late night nutty shit on History channel afterwards. The first news reports I observed about Obama's victory was rudimentary, mainstream stuff -- the stuff that any normal American is subjected to. And with today's busy lifestyles, many Americans don't get to see beyond the mainstream narrative.

So as I drove home around 1am, I had the radio on and the news anchor was quick to point out that, while Obama achieved a resounding victory, half of the SC primary voters were black and Obama netted most of them. And when I woke up (late) this morning, the Sunday paper of my local rag had this AP story on its front page, which described Obama's SC victory as such:

"The choice in this election is not about regions or religions or genders," Obama said at a boisterous victory rally. "It's not about rich versus poor, young versus old and it's not about black versus white. It's about the past versus the future."

The audience chanted "Race doesn't matter" as it awaited Obama to make his appearance after rolling up 55 percent of the vote in a three-way race.

But it did, in a primary that shattered turnout records.

About half the voters were black, according to polling place interviews, and four out of five of them supported Obama. Black women turned out in particularly large numbers. Obama, the first-term Illinois senator, got about a quarter of the white vote while Clinton and former Sen. John Edwards of North Carolina split the rest.

And so it goes. For the national media, the narrative is in: Obama rode a black wave to victory. But when I look at the same raw exit poll numbers that the reporters have, I see that white voters in SC gave the white candidates 76% of their vote. If Obama getting 78% of the black vote is a big story, then why isn't this pale 76% for Clinton and Edwards just as big? Why is the national narrative a black thing? I mean, as we all know, nobody is trying to inject race into this election by claiming that only black people can win in SC.


Really!

Pam Spaulding on Blog Buzz

Pam Spaulding and conservative blogger Mary Katherine Ham discuss the South Carolina primary on the CNN show Blog Buzz.



Spaulding, Ham and moderator Tony Harris agree on the stupidity of Hillary Clinton attacking Barack Obama on Martin Luther King.

Mrs Clinton, trying to make a point about presidential leadership and Mr Obama’s constant references to Dr King, the civil rights icon, said: “Dr King’s dream began to be realised when President Lyndon Johnson passed the Civil Rights Act of 1964. It took a president to get it done.”

The comment is telling on what Hillary thinks of executive power. She dismissively views grassroots activism and King's struggles as secondary. Political scientist Daniel Drezner believes Hillary will pay a political price for the racially-tinged attacks against Obama.

This presidential cycle has gone against the convention wisdom. Mike Huckabee's attacks on John McCain failed to deliver South Carolina. The Hillary smears failed big time in Iowa. I couldn't be happier.

Mike Huckabee News

The wingnut organization Common Sense Issues is running a pro-Mike Huckabee push poll in South Carolina. (Check out the racist anti-Cuban video on their web site.)

Fred Thompson addressed the push poll in front of an audience.

“I'm obviously familiar with the push poll concept. Same folks did that in Iowa, and you know, it seems to be coming from one direction, but I won't call any names, but Gov. Huckabee says he doesn't know anything about it. So....”

Huckabee is busy equating gay sex to bestiality. The Huckster wants to party likes it's 2004.

QUESTIONER: Is it your goal to bring the Constitution into strict conformity with the Bible? Some people would consider that a kind of dangerous undertaking, particularly given the variety of biblical interpretations.

HUCKABEE: Well, I don't think that's a radical view to say we're going to affirm marriage. I think the radical view is to say that we're going to change the definition of marriage so that it can mean two men, two women, a man and three women, a man and a child, a man and animal. Again, once we change the definition, the door is open to change it again. I think the radical position is to make a change in what's been historic.

Huckabee can get away with homophobic comments because Democrats are fearful of addressing gay marriage. Democrats make the bizarre statement that they are for civil unions, but not gay marriage. During the 2004 campaign, John Edwards exploded on the press when he couldn't articulate why he favored the former. The difference for Democrats is the wording. Gay couples should have the same rights as married couples. Gay and lesbian unions must never be called marriage. The reason is...

Huckabee will run on homophobia until a Democrat calls him out. Ron Paul has become silent after his racist and homophobic newsletters became a campaign issue. Are Democrats afraid Chuck Norris is going to open a can of whoop ass if they point out their views? Show some spine, people.

'We All Love Ronald Reagan'

Fox News aired the South Carolina primary. The Republican candidates fought each other over whom has the greatest hetrosexual crush on Ronald Reagan.