It's not anything to be excited about

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

The fact that Clinton is polling at 19% in the black community in South Carolina is nothing to crow about, no more than the fact that Obama is polling 19% in the white community in South Carolina is something to crow about.

It was really exciting when Clinton and Obama were 50-50 among blacks in South Carolina... as exciting as Obama doing so well with white voters in Iowa.

I do not begrudge Senator Obama's disproportionate black support, any more than I begrudge Hillary's disproportionate female support, or begrudge Edwards' core support of white working class males.

But there's nothing thrilling, in the abstract, about voters naturally lining up to vote for people that resemble their class, their race, their gender. It's predictable, not tranformational. It's human nature, of course, but it's unfortunate human nature, and unfortunate human nature is the heart of the "old" politics.

Senator Obama obviously enjoyed strong support in some urban areas in Michigan, and that's good for him.

But why has that datum been filtered and expressed here (in some places) as a triumphant expression of the presumtion that black people hate Hillary? There's no good news for anyone in black people disliking Hillary, any more than it would be good news for anyone if white people disliked Barack. If everybody's net polling numbers were the same, but their support was more heterogeneous within that support, it would be more positive, turning-the-page-wise.

I'm not always a glass-half-full kind of guy, but see the fact that 78% of African American voters in Michigan voted for uncommitted as a positive sign of support for Obama, not as a racial referendum on the horribleness of Hillary.

Barack is a popular man, and deservedly so.

[Hestia]

1. I'll be glad when everyone wakes up and quits 'bouncing off' what the MSM

says. Last night I was never prouder to be a Democrat and will proudly cast my vote come November 8th. Last night's debate was great, the first time they started to let their hair down and actually start talking to us. Not all the way, but the most ever in these debates. There is something to be said for having the candidates sitting down at a Round Table. There were several times where they talked over Russert/Williams and talked to each other! You got to hear "why" they differ on policy, why each feels the way they do, and they addressed each other. Adult's were in the house.

[PatSeg]

3. You and I must have been watching a different debate

than a lot of people at GDP, because I was very impressed with all the candidates for the first time. I did not see any clear winner, but I saw a more unified group. I think they all realized that the public was getting really turned off by the politics as usual atmosphere and they need to show a sharp contrast to the republicans.

[BootinUp]

4. I saw that one too. nt

[PatSeg]

5. Now that my first choice has dropped out,

I guess I'm looking at the remaining three more objectively. Being one of the three will be our nominee, I viewed them from a different vantage point and I liked what I saw. Our primary focus must be to get a Democrat in the WH, not beat one another up.

[PatSeg]

7. The MSM will jump on anything the candidates say

and blow it out of proportion just to make a headline. I hope the candidates can maintain this civility and not feed the wolves anymore.

[BootinUp]

2. I just think its a shame

for awhile there it was much more interesting and noteworthy as evidence we were getting smarter.

[Barack_America]

6. What did you think of "Uncommitted" winning the independent votes.

Just curious.

And also because when I think of people willing to vote against racial, class and gender lines, I think about Independent voters (whether that's justified or not)