When I was growing up in North Carolina, our neighbor South Carolina played an important role in our lives--giving us something to look down on. We fell for too many racist demagogues through the years (y'all remember Jesse Helms?), but we weren't always run by them. We didn't have no rebel flag flying over our statehouse. We elected a racially moderate governor at the height of the civil-rights backlash in 1960. It was something to say for ourselves, and we appreciated South Carolina's making us look relatively all right.

After Saturday's primary, this Tar Heel can do nothing but offer a big, deep bow to the Democrats of South Carolina. Not because I was particularly rooting for Barack Obama over John Edwards--but because of these fine folks' rejection of the Clintons' gutter politics. The majority of white Democrats, in a state where the Democratic Party was so long the organized mob enforcing Jim Crow, repelled the Clinton campaign's unspeakably vile attempt to paint Barack Obama as some kind of coke-dealing, slumlord-pimping cousin of Al Sharpton--and their equally vile assumption that Deep South whites, whether they're Democratic or Republican, can be manipulated by coded racial divisiveness in 2008 the way they were in 1968. Or, to add a bit more vileness to the mix, their assumption that they could make South Carolina blacks believe that one of their own would be "unelectable" by definition.

The overwhelming majority of South Carolina blacks rejected Senator Clinton in the most profound way: after first supporting her. She had a two-to-one lead on Obama among black South Carolinians at mid-campaign. Whites didn't reject her nearly so soundly--about one-quarter of them voted for Obama, with the others pretty well split between Clinton and John Edwards. But half of under-30 white voters--and there were a ton of them--went for Obama.

What to make of the fact that a strong majority of whites in South Carolina opted against Clinton? Some of it is explained, no doubt, by the fact that South Carolina Democrats hear visceral evidence, most every day, from their Republican neighbors of how little chance the Senator from New York would have of getting a fair hearing in red-state America. Some, perhaps, is due to the fact that with Edwards in the race, white Democrats didn't "have" to vote for Obama to be anti-Clinton. (Though I know from talking to white South Carolina Democrats that many of them were split between Edwards, as a truer populist progressive, and Obama, as an inspirational bundle of potential. They weren't just deciding between the white candidates.) It is also because the Clintons have come to embody, for many middle Americans, the moral and intellectual emptiness they seen in liberalism--feel-good, stand-for-nothing, make-no-difference power players cloaking their lust for control in "feel-your-pain" platitudes.   In South Carolina, the Clintons demonstrated just how much unfortunate truth there is to that exaggerated view of them (not liberals). And the white Democrats of South Carolina demonstrated precisely the opposite: that there is less truth than ever to the negative stereotypes about them.

The same is true--albeit a little less so--of white Republicans in the Deep South. The backlash generation is dying off, thank goodness. A new generation of voters--not just young Southerners but also millions of Hispanic voters--is rising. Where they will take Southern politics is anything but certain. But as South Carolinians showed tonight, it isn't going to be backward toward the days of Strom Thurmond and Lee Atwater--or Bill Clinton. 

"That is not the America we believe in," Obama said tonight at a victory rally that surely made the eyes of many Southerners, black and white and otherwise, get misty. Seeing Obama cheered by so many hopeful South Carolinians--and such a gorgeous mix of them, black and white and Hispanic, young and old, blue-collar and Blue State Liberal--reminded me a little of the 1976 Democratic Convention, when both George Wallace and Texas Congresswoman Barbara Jordan were onstage, singing "We Shall Overcome" with Jimmy Carter and Friends. It felt like the New South--a place no longer hopelessly perverted and held back by race -- was dawning in front of us, watching our TV sets.

That was a false dawn. Most Southerners, like most Americans, accepted school integration peacefully--and then generally challenged themselves no further, retreating into the suburbs, and into the blithe assumption that since we no longer held black people unequal under the law, we were now "colorblind" and could stop worrying about it. The Republicans were superb at promoting this comforting notion. The Democrats have been lousy at contesting it.

Cheering Obama, of course, can be another self-congratulatory exercise for white people. It can become a kind of cheap expiation of our guilt--whether we're white in Mississippi or white in California. But, especially because of the way the Clintons have racialized this campaign, a vote for Obama has now come to mean something else: a repudiation of at least some of the worst instincts that politicians have so long depended on us to manifest. 

South Carolina-bashing has always been popular sport -- almost as much as Mississippi-bashing. During the war that was this primary, the pundits were often just as bleak as the Clintons about South Carolinians' potential to rise above. Bob Herbert of The New York Times wrote a scathing column about how "South Carolina, where the Confederate flag still flies on the grounds of the State Capitol, is a disturbing example of how difficult it is for people of good will to dispose of the toxic layers of bigotry that have accumulated over several long centuries." He had his reasons, some a bit silly (a statue of the insanely racist "Pitchfork Ben" Tillman at the statehouse) and some damningly substantive (the "Corridor of Shame" along I-95, with its breathtaking black poverty). And he said something awfully wise: "In South Carolina the Confederate flag is flying right out there in the open and Pitchfork Ben is on display for all to see. But in most other places, the hostility to blacks remains on the down-low. No one wants to deal with it."

Tonight, it looked like at least a few South Carolinians--and most of them who are white and under thirty--had dealt with it. At least one small fraction of it. And as we used to say, in a different context, bless their hearts for that. 

Comments (35)

1. TAR HEEL MOSER: ....white South Carolina Democrats that many of them were split between Edwards, as a truer populist progressive, and Obama, as an inspirational bundle of potential. They weren't just deciding between the white candidates.

   Edwards needs to stay in the Race thru Feb. 5th to pick off more Hillary voters! His staying in will also force HRC to deal with a much more complicated scenario than just focusing exclusively on Obama! HRC was wrong to assume Edwards' candidacy helps HER!

   Posted by Happy at 01/26/2008 @ 11:05pm

2. yay!

   ding dong the witch is dead! i'm meltinggggg...i'm melting!!!!

   Posted by ibbleblibble at 01/26/2008 @ 11:53pm

3. perhaps time to start crying some more?

   Posted by ibbleblibble at 01/26/2008 @ 11:53pm

4. Where they will take Southern politics is anything but certain. But as South Carolinians showed tonight, it isn't going to be backward toward the days of Strom Thurmond and Lee Atwater--or Bill Clinton.

   The Clintons had their chance to enact progressive change, but failed. They failed on healthcare for all, they failed to end government corruption, they failed to break our addiction to oil, and they failed to prevent war with Iraq.

   America is ready to break with the failed politics of the past and embrace meaningful progressive change - a change that inspires all of us to live up to our highest ideals as Americans.

   Posted by Metteyya at 01/27/2008 @ 12:15am

5. This is actually a bad win for Obama. It shows the nation that his candidacy hinges on making sure that Blacks are inflamed enough to overwhelmingly vote for him - and not give due credence to other candidates - simply because he is black.

   That wont sit well with people who think that race should not be a factor in this race.

   Posted by fjstratford at 01/27/2008 @ 12:15am

6. Posted by FJSTRATFORD 01/27/2008 @ 12:15am

   Obama WON the white vote in South Carolina for those 30 year-old or younger and with collge educated whites, and tied Hillary for the white male vote! The only "white" category Hillary won in South Carolina is with older white women.

   Blacks were insulted that Hillary thought she could buy their vote by offering favors or calling in favors to reverends and black political leaders. Unless Clinton can do more than say "things were better for upper class blacks when we were in charge", she is going to continue to lose the black vote across the country.

   Posted by Metteyya at 01/27/2008 @ 12:26am

7. ....race should not be a factor in this race.

   Posted by FJSTRATFORD 01/27/2008 @ 12:15am

   Got news for you.....race IS a factor in every race...just matter of degree! The only thing new, in "this race", is gender.....only 20% of white women voted for Obama.

   BTW, isn't the fact ~90% of blacks vote Democratic THE REASON the Dems are even viable? That means, race is always a HUGE factor after Primaries!

   Posted by Happy at 01/27/2008 @ 12:26am

8. The Clintons want this to be decided along racial lines. Sure, Obama will win the southern states but what about California and New York? Bill Clinton, James Carville, et al. are many moves ahead in this "game". We'll hear Jessie Jackson and Al Sharpton's names mentioned by the Clinton camp now.

   Sure Obama is a great orator but is he willing to roll-up his sleeves and get his hands dirty? The Clinton's have proven time and time again they'll do whatever it takes.

   Watch and see.

   Posted by bleedingheart at 01/27/2008 @ 12:44am

9. All this "bloc vote" analysis & jabber plays right into the angry Billary's gutter tactics from now to Tsunami Tues. Edwards could perform his greatest service by announcing, preferably on this sabbath's gabfests, that he's pulling out & encouraging his supporters to back Obama NOW. Otherwise Edwards serves the Clinton cause more than he hurts it. If Edwards comes out strong for Obama -- & even campaigns for & with him this week, abhoring any mention of Billary, come Feb. 6 it's a new dawn & we Dems may see chaos at last put to rest, the 2-headed monster of the Pardon Sellers finally out of our nightmares. Then the GOP goofs can expose themselves playing dirty against the Black Man who wants to occupy their WHITE House.

   Posted by sloper at 01/27/2008 @ 02:43am

10. Posted by BLEEDINGHEART 01/27/2008 @ 12:44am

    Everyone who says will California be won. I live here. I gurantee you it will be won by Obama. Same with New York. I lived there when Clinton was senator. People in New York HATE Clinton. I never asked why but most people I met there did not like her at all. Here in California I have only met ONE person who supported Hillary, it was a woman over 40 who just wanted to see a woman president in her lifetime. Most of the stickers you see on bumpers around here are vote Obama and a smattering here and there of Edwards. Obama will win California and New York both.

    Posted by Cccomfo1 at 01/27/2008 @ 03:13am

11. Anyone heard from Frank by the way?

    Posted by Cccomfo1 at 01/27/2008 @ 03:15am

12. America is ready to break with the failed politics of the past and embrace meaningful progressive change - a change that inspires all of us to live up to our highest ideals as Americans.

    Posted by METTEYYA 01/27/2008 @ 12:15am

    Heard all that sort of glib talk before. If one can't live up to their ideals in adversity the ideals or the person aren't worth much.

    Falling for a politician's rhetoric and oratory has not had a good history. Informed Americans should be aware of that from the two great "change orators" from the last century who enchanted and swayed tens of millions. Are Americans any different from those Germans and Italians? Our enthusiasm for rhetorical style over substance may tell us we are slow learners.

    Americans with an eye to history are more likely to favour sound policies and the ability to deliver on them over stirring speeches and feel good politics.

    Posted by harvey 79 at 01/27/2008 @ 03:16am

13. Americans with an eye to history are more likely to favour sound policies and the ability to deliver on them over stirring speeches and feel good politics.

    Posted by HARVEY 79 01/27/2008 @ 03:16am

    and so, the next president of worldco. should be whom?

    Posted by frosty zoom at 01/27/2008 @ 03:26am

14. Posted by FROSTY ZOOM 01/27/2008 @ 03:26am

    The one who gets the most votes (and the nod from the Electoral College)in November.

    Posted by harvey 79 at 01/27/2008 @ 03:39am

15. "Most Southerners, like most Americans, accepted school integration peacefully..."

    You might need to educate some of the Yankees and Westerners around here, Mr Moser....they seem to think it's still 1956 below the Mason-Dixon.

    (and of course THEIR region is "more enlightened"!)

    Posted by Mask at 01/27/2008 @ 07:25am

16. The one who gets the most votes (and the nod from the Electoral College)in November.

    Posted by HARVEY 79 01/27/2008 @ 03:39am

    so, you mean the one who talks the prettiest or the one who scares the crap out of the most people?

    Posted by frosty zoom at 01/27/2008 @ 08:55am

17. Pretty Talker Party vs. Crap Scarer Outer Party

    (brayers vs. pachydermolishers)

    Posted by frosty zoom at 01/27/2008 @ 08:58am

18. There's evidence that the Clintons are seen as waging a deeply racist -- and rightwing -- campaign. Two of the best posts come from Andrew Sullivan and from a political analyst in the UK's Independent (url too long to be acceptable to the Nation!). The subtlety of the Clintons' racist tactics has given way to blatancy. Seems to me that supporting the Clintons now means approving their tactics, much as many Republicans who didn't care for Rove went along to get along in the early days of the Bush presidency. Then, too, the Clintons are obviously the easiest candidates to beat in the general. But above all, wouldn't it be nice to get back to discussion of the major national issues? That's what the two grownups of the contest, Obama and Edwards, are eager to do, along with most progressives.

    Posted by saetias at 01/27/2008 @ 09:08am

19. This is one Sandlapper who's glad to see some respect from a Tarheel. My family of traditionally conservative white Republicans voted for Obama. I'm not saying Obama would take SC in the general, but that sort of change could make a real difference in the swing states. I would just also like to point out that while, yes, SC does fly the confederate and has a confederate monument, we're also the only state in the union to have a monument to African-American history on its capitol grounds. It's an interesting dichotomy that kind of sums up our people. Check it out on your next visit to Columbia!

    Posted by martincaver at 01/27/2008 @ 09:21am

20. Posted by HARVEY 79 01/27/2008 @ 03:16am

    HARVEY,

    You and I may not need inspiration from a leader, but there are a whole lot of Americans that need hope right now, and no one is inspiring them to believe that there is a light at the end of the tunnel except Obama.

    And if you look at Obama's record [ontheissues.org], it is not just great oratory. The man has EXTRAORDINARY political skill, and is able to bring Democrats and Republicans together to pass PROGRESSIVE legislation!

    Posted by Metteyya at 01/27/2008 @ 09:21am

21. So, you mean the one who talks the prettiest or the one who scares the crap out of the most people?

    Posted by FROSTY ZOOM 01/27/2008 @ 08:55am

    Not necessarily. Merely that when all is said and done I believe in all the institutions of democracy, including accepting election results. The alternative could be referred to as the Kenyan solution.

    Here's a thought for you. Mussolini had his fascist enforcers; Hitler had his national socialist gangs to make sure they got the "democratic" vote. Obama, and all the others, have their army of face to face operators whose goal is exactly the same. Maybe the pressure placed on US voters is not so radical but does it not also corrupt our democratic system?

    Perhaps it is nothing more than an application of our infamous, arm twisting, religious "soul winning" methodology but perhaps the practice tends to diminish the democratic process in that the "prettiest" or "crap out of people, scaring" talking may not even come from the candidate but from his/her gang of get the vote out "enforcers".

    Or is the practice not some sort of incipient corruption? eg a big Mac and a cup of coffee with milk and two sugars in exchange for your mind and your vote.

    Posted by harvey 79 at 01/27/2008 @ 11:47am

22. Posted by SAETIAS 01/27/2008 @ 09:08am

    copy megalinks and go to this site for linkshrink [tinyurl.com]

    Posted by frosty zoom at 01/27/2008 @ 12:58pm

23. Or is the practice not some sort of incipient corruption? eg a big Mac and a cup of coffee with milk and two sugars in exchange for your mind and your vote.

    Posted by HARVEY 79 01/27/2008 @ 11:47am

    well, it's kind of like the pimp/hooker/john relationship.

    who's THE guilty party? or is it all three?

    Posted by frosty zoom at 01/27/2008 @ 1:04pm

24. Check it out on your next visit to Columbia!

    Posted by MARTINCAVER 01/27/2008 @ 09:21am

    i'll check it out next time i'm going down to frogmore.

    Posted by frosty zoom at 01/27/2008 @ 1:11pm

25. I am a lifelong Democrat, and I am absolutely disgusted with the mud-slingling, character assassination, incessant lying, and politics of personal destruction the Clinton campaign and former president continues to display. I will vote for John McCain before I ever vote for Hillary Clinton. The Clinton's win-at-all-costs campaign of lying, rumor, innuendo, tearing your opponent down and trying to scare the public is something they are experts at. I am enthusiastically voting for Barack Obama who is a person who can unite us all to solve the many problems our country faces. He brings inspiration, hope, and change, and we certainly need change and that means no more Bush or Clinton's in the White House. If one compares the spouses of the two main Democratic contenders you have Michelle Obama, a woman of intelligence, grace, class, and dignity and then you have Bill Clinton. Enough said. America deserves better than what the Clintons offer. When the Clinton's come asking for your vote it's time America just says NO.

    Posted by mjkoch at 01/27/2008 @ 3:03pm

26. Posted by FJSTRATFORD 01/27/2008 @ 12:15am | ignore this person

    Your crystal ball told you for a certainty that "they" weren't simply ticked off, irked, incenced, or off-put? Indeed, you know for a fact that "they" weren't merely pissed off, smoldering, or sparked (and rightfully so)? No no no they wuz inflamed ... I guess nothing else would have fit your nonsensical subjectivity.

    What do you think of this?

    By: Posted by MJKOCH 01/27/2008 @ 3:03pm | ignore this person

    "I am a lifelong Democrat, and I am absolutely disgusted with the mud-slinging, character assassination, incessant lying, and politics of personal destruction the Clinton campaign and former president continues to display."

    Is MJKOCH white? And, continuing my earlier point ... you are sure that they were not "absolutely disgusted with the mud-slinging, character assassination, incessant lying, and politics of personal destruction the Clinton campaign and former president continues to display"? And rightfully so?

    Posted by V at 01/27/2008 @ 6:31pm

27. Posted by HARVEY 79 01/27/2008 @ 11:47am | ignore this person

    Or perhaps you're not quite rational? Though you've rationalized framing Obama with Mussolini, his fascist enforcers and Hitler ... no less, you must understand that there is a distinct difference, believe it or not, between rationalizing, and being rational. Maybe you should work on the latter, first, before ... you try your hand at political discourse?

    Posted by V at 01/27/2008 @ 6:43pm

28. Let's not get taken in, please? It's really sad to watch how easily exploited we are by this game they play.

    Posted by ZERO 01/27/2008

    Zero, there ain't no spinnin' this one....Hillbillary suffered a crushing defeat in South Carolina, and got a kick by the Kennedys while they were down, to boot.

    That is not to say that the Clintons don't have at least a couple of more dirty tricks up their sleeves.......Watching them is like watching an episode of Nick Tuck...you're constantly surprised by the plot twists...entertaining, yes, but in a acary sort of way.....

    Posted by davebarlett at 01/27/2008 @ 8:13pm

29. er, scary sort of way

    Posted by davebarlett at 01/27/2008 @ 8:48pm

30. Re: "Dawn in South Carolina"

    Oh yeah, that's why the GOP loves Obama so much as if he were their only hope in this election cycle. Get real, man. Obviously, my enemy's friend is not my friend.

    Posted by HelenDAO at 01/28/2008 @ 02:24am

31. Forget Hillary. Let's go, Jimmy Carter, your turn ... a good time this week for you to step up & endorse Obama, arm in arm. The Clintons were publicly rude to JC & dissed him. JC, step up to the plate now & help retire Billary from the field. Let Obama start running asap against the Bush Republicans, like Romney & Cheney's daughter.

    Posted by sloper at 01/28/2008 @ 05:39am

32. '...If Hillary loses South Carolina and the defeat serves to demonstrate Obama's ability to attract a bloc vote among black Democrats, the message will go out loud and clear to white voters that this is a racial fight. It's one thing for polls to show, as they now do, that Obama beats Hillary among African-Americans by better than 4-to-1 and Hillary carries whites by almost 2-to-1. But most people don't read the fine print on the polls. But if blacks deliver South Carolina to Obama, everybody will know that they are bloc-voting. That will trigger a massive white backlash against Obama and will drive white voters to Hillary Clinton. Obama has done everything he possibly could to keep race out of this election. And the Clintons attracted national scorn when they tried to bring it back in by attempting to minimize the role Martin Luther King Jr. played in the civil rights movement. But here they have a way of appearing to seek the black vote, losing it, and getting their white backlash, all without any fingerprints showing....'

    Dick Morris and Eileen McGann -- 23 January, 2008 -- Townhall.com (Dick Morris is a former political advisor to Bill Clinton)

    Posted by HonestLiberal at 01/28/2008 @ 09:22am

33. and is able to bring Democrats and Republicans together to pass PROGRESSIVE legislation!

    Posted by METTEYYA 01/27/2008 @ 09:21am

    What progressive legislation does Obama have planned?

    Posted by Hman23 at 01/28/2008 @ 11:22am

34. Posted by HONESTLIBERAL 01/28/2008 @ 09:22am

    Obviously Dick the man who is loyal to the Clintons is trying to turn this INTO a racial fight. Have you guys forgotten about Iowa? The state Obama won that has a 95% white population. Hmmm there were no blacks there to vote for him so why did he win there? You guys are buying into Hillary's tactic of turning this into a racial thing and ignoring the fact that he already won a state with a majority white population by a decently substantial margin.

    Posted by Cccomfo1 at 01/28/2008 @ 12:18pm

35. Everyone has to check out the article "White Voters with a Side of Hispanics" on the blogzine Savage Politics. This is an awesome discussion and analysis on the current Democrat and GOP candidates and their eligibility.

    www.savagepolitics.com Here is an excerpt: "Tuesday night's Florida Primary was a very important episode in the drama in which both the Republican and Democrat Parties are unfolding towards the Presidency of the United States. It also dramatically demonstrated the incredible bias that the Media continues to display towards the Democratic hopeful Barack Obama, in spite of all the evidence pointing to his lack of viability. From MSNBC's Chris Mathews, who openly stated the day before that any Network that decided to report on the Democratic voting results in Florida was proving a "gross" favoritism for Hillary (ironically enough his Network ended up having to cover it nevertheless), to CNN's pundits, who continuously utilized the exact same rhetoric that the Obama Campaign was spewing to excuse their defeat ("Beauty Pageant" was their favorite phrase, with all the sexist connotations it implies). All the same, the Florida results in the Democratic side were overwhelmingly favorable to Hillary Clinton, who won a 50% margin, to Obama's 33%, Edwards' 14%, and Gravel's 1%. On the Republican side, it was John McCain who came out victorious with a 36% margin, to Romney's 31%, Giuliani's 15%, Huckabee's 14%, and Paul's 3%. Let's discuss each Party's results and their realistic consequence. First, we have the very significant victory of John McCain. His candidacy was, from the very start, labeled as a failure due to his unpopularity amongst most "base" Republicans, much of it owed to McCain's overwhelmingly dubious record on Conservative issues. His notorious tendency to side with multiple (highly despised) Democrats on issues like Immigration, Bush's Tax Cuts and other measures, have always been enough to marginalize him from even the "moderate wing" within his Party. Still, when the Florida Exit Polls are analyzed, they reflect many unexpected re-alignments in his favor. Evangelical/Born Again Christians voted for John McCain in a 30% margin, in comparison to both Romney's and Huckabee's 29%. This may seem like an insignificant difference, but when you also consider that the majority of non-Evangelicals (Catholics, Atheist, etc.) also…" Find the rest of the article at http://savagepolitics.com/?p=64

    Posted by elsylee at 01/30/2008 @ 6:20pm