South Carolina Democratic Primary Nears as Poll Numbers Shift
EmailABC News’ David Muir and Kate Snow report: With just hours until the South Carolina primary, there are new poll numbers that show just how racially polarizing the Democratic race has become in that state where 50 percent of the Democratic voters are African-American.
The MSNBC/McClatchy/Mason-Dixon poll shows in just the last week, Sen. Barack Obama’s, D-Ill., support among white voters has dropped 10 points. Obama stills leads overwhelmingly among black voters.
Today, an Associated Press reporter went so far as to write in a column, "Hillary Clinton has won in South Carolina" — meaning not necessarily in the primary itself, but in how her campaign has portrayed Obama as “the black candidate.”
In an interview with ABC News’ David Muir, Sen. Hillary Clinton, D-N.Y., said that is simply not true.
“Neither John Edwards, or Barack or I have wanted race to be an issue in this campaign,” she said.
Today, Obama shot it down too, resisting any opportunity to blame the slide among white voters on any Clinton campaign strategy.
Instead, Obama raced to reach out to white voters. Obama held two roundtable meetings today largely attended by white working women.
In an interview for ABC News’ "Good Morning America Weekend Edition," Obama told ABC’s Kate Snow, “The truth is my base has always been broad. It’s broad in Illinois, which is only 12 percent African-American.”
If Barack Obama has in fact lost some of his white support, it would appear the biggest beneficiary may be former Sen. John Edwards. The same poll shows Edwards gaining white voters.
"That may be the way they do politics in New York, it may be the way they do politics in Chicago, but South Carolina is better than that and you deserve better than that,” Edwards told voters gathered at a campaign rally in Columbia, S.C.
At every campaign stop today, Edwards railed against the bitter fighting between the Clinton and Obama campaigns. His campaign began running a South Carolina ad capitalizing on it.
The ad shows fiery clips from the most recent Democratic debate, during which Obama said to Clinton that while he was working on the streets of Chicago, “You were a corporate lawyer sitting on the board of Wal-Mart." The ad also shows Clinton firing back, telling Obama, “I was fighting against those ideas when you were practicing law and representing your contributor, Rezko, in his slum landlord business in inner-city Chicago.”
Edwards told Muir that kind of bickering is why the poll numbers are changing.
“I think some of it is the fighting and bickering and some of it is division,” Edwards said.
When asked by Muir if it is racial division, Edwards said, “I don’t know. It may be part of it.”
Edwards was born in South Carolina and won the primary here in 2004. He is now polling in third place, but he told Muir he will stay in the race even if he comes in third, even as a headline in the South Carolina newspaper, The State, read, “Close to Do or Die?”
CPAC: Romney Struggles to Convince Voters 
Obama Backs Off Birth Control Battle?
Senator John Kerry today said, “Bill Clinton “does not have a license to abuse the truth.”
Posted by: Luvin' It | January 25, 2008, 9:41 pm 9:41 pm
so tired of Edwards’ opportunistic game-playing! i think he’s hurting hillary – probably his intent. but either way, i’m just tired of him.
Posted by: so saddened | January 25, 2008, 9:51 pm 9:51 pm
As Edwards gains exposure, Americans are liking what they see. Some of us want an alternative to Obama and Clinton and want to hear more from Edwards.
Edwards seems to be the voice for average Americans and some of us find his message more appealing than those from the other two candidates.
Getting his message out is not opportunistic game-playing; it’s called politics. And, I don’t think Obama or Hillary supporters are in a position to question the integrity of the Edwards campaign.
In the end, I will support the Democratic nominee. Any of the Democratic candidates would be better than another Republican in office.
Posted by: tessablue | January 25, 2008, 10:09 pm 10:09 pm
tessablue:
I would agree with your comment except that it is tough given Edwards’ record. Feingold is right: it is one thing to change your position on one issue, but Edwards’ positions now are diametrically opposite to how he voted in the Senate on alot of issues. As Feingold noted, he is running on Feingold’s record. (Now if Feingold was running, I might just support him over my favored candidate (Obama)).
Posted by: cb | January 25, 2008, 10:15 pm 10:15 pm
I like Edwards, but the problems between his rhetoric (this year) and his voting record make his general election chances dicey. I’m voting for Obama because he has such cross-over appeal, racially, economically, and even in party affiliation.
Well, at least he did until the Clintons decided to tear him down. It will be interesting to see a) if Obama can recover the ‘magic’, and b) if the Clintons can get away with it without permanent damage.
Anyway, my point is that unless Edwards starts writing Romney-esque checks out of his own account, he will not be competitive Feb. 5. Besides I hear Edwards is the next Attorney General.
Posted by: Ward | January 25, 2008, 10:28 pm 10:28 pm
Reality check for the Obama campaign and the Obama followers, the hype will last only for sometime and Obama has to come down of this pedestal to fight for the Presidency and show everyone he is ready and have what it takes to be a President. Time to answer the hard questions and explains his agenda instead of simple slogans. He picked the wrong fight with the wrong person, he should be attacking the Republicans and showing the difference of his agenda versus the ones from Hillary and Edwards, instead he thought he was big enough and powerful enough and ready enough to win; poor judgment that will cost hi deeply!
I hope the rockie learn his lesson, to be humble, work hard, and don’t take things for granted!!!!!!!!
Posted by: mary | January 25, 2008, 10:34 pm 10:34 pm
Edwards is the best candidate and best chance to win the general election!
Imagine Edwards with all the millions of dollars given to Obama or Hillary, the tons of free press given to Hillary and Obama!
GO EDWARDS!
Posted by: Eli_Florida | January 25, 2008, 10:40 pm 10:40 pm
I think both clinton and Obama should focus on the issues that we all are facing today. They should stop picking on each other and focus on how to resolve this srisis we are in now. May be they should focus on teaming up to win the general election.
It was absoulte ignorance what obama did on Cbs latre night show. Oprah is not a politician. He should not mention her name till the primaries are ove. He is unable to come out of his Reace card. He sould not think that Race will help him. If he put oprah with him now he will lose the praimary elections. may many people do not like to see any celebvraties in the race. run on your own merit ,on your expereince. on your ability to bring change. Endorsements do not make much diffrerence.
franklin
Posted by: Franklin | January 25, 2008, 10:55 pm 10:55 pm
Craig, — LOL you are making me laugh..so paying $400 dollars for a haircut desqualified you for the Presidency!! LOL
Oh man, this country really needs to work things out. LOL
Now, the hair cut wasn’t even Edwards who payed, his campaign booked the hairstylist and arranged the price.
That’s all the bad things they can say about Edwards, that and how big is his house like he should be ashame for been successful and worked hard all his life with honesty to be where he is now, and even now he is running for President without the millions of dollars from corporation, big celebrities millionaires, PAC groups, lobbyists, etc. Now that have to be recognized!
He should be proud of what he has done as any American on his shoes should be proud as well.
Posted by: Paul | January 25, 2008, 11:15 pm 11:15 pm
I hate to give you the bad news Craig, but Edwards reimbursed his campaign out of his own pocket for the $400.00 hair cut.
Wouldn’t it be interesting to know what Obama spent the money he got from the “slum lord” on.
How about Hillary, how much do you think she spends on haircuts and make up, we’ll never know because she is too busy fighting with Obama about Wallmart and slum lords.
Paleassse!! If that is the only thing you can find on Edwards, you are grasping for straws my friend.
Posted by: Wolfgirl | January 25, 2008, 11:37 pm 11:37 pm
“Have people forgotten Edwards spent $400 every month to get his hair cut?!?! What guy spends that kind of money on his hair??? Not to mention using campaign money to do so…I’m sorry I couldn’t vote for someone this vain.”
This is normal for celebrities. If you are a good hairdresser, you can charge what you want. Why pick on hairdressers for being good at what they do?? I am sure that Oprah or Brad Pitt pay this to their hairdressers. Both of these people champion those in need, but no one is getting upset about it. Besides, I am sure that John Edwards did not come up with the idea on his own. It was probably a personal image consultant.
Posted by: Amanda | January 25, 2008, 11:53 pm 11:53 pm
More bad news for Obama, Senator Nelson from Florida will be endorsing Hillary!
Oh well, Obama at least got Kerry, Bradley and Dashle!!
Posted by: Tere | January 26, 2008, 12:02 am 12:02 am
remember folks it was john edwards and obama who started attacking hillary during the debates. basicly they have no plans no nothing. hillary is much more intelligent tha both of them combined. obama is only faking being a brother of the african/americans in this country. he has no slavery ancestors. he is just pretending. wake up people! hillary is ready to be president from day one. GO HILLARY GO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Posted by: melody | January 26, 2008, 12:56 am 12:56 am
I’ve been running the trapline, and I think the Clintons have blown it. It looks like there’s finally a respectable reason for the Dem establishment (some of it anyways) to come out and say out loud what they’ve felt for a long time.
“We’re sick to death of the Clintons!!”
Posted by: Ward | January 26, 2008, 2:21 am 2:21 am
I couldn’t agree more (with Ward, above). I too am sick of the Clintons. I’m a Democrat, and I certainly don’t want to vote for a Republican! I just…CAN’T! But rather than vote for Hillary, I’ll just stay home. You know what? Hillary is…nasty. Of course, she leaves a lot of the dirty work up to Bill. But I don’t like to see people act like that! I want a President I can be proud of: GO OBAMA!!!
Posted by: Janet | January 26, 2008, 4:32 am 4:32 am
Hillary’s overuse of Bill Clinton makes her look both needy and cravenly nepotistic at the same time. It’s…icky and depressing. The American Presidency should go to the best candidate, not the best-connected blood relation to a former president. That’s why Americans fought the American Revolution.
Posted by: FilmMD | January 26, 2008, 4:55 am 4:55 am
I am really anxious to see how the so-called white vote in the South Carolina primary turns out. One of the latest polls has Senator Obama as low as 10% among whites there. (Hillary Clinton and Senator Edwards essentially split most of the rest.) To me, this would be a sad state of affairs, if it happens. It would indicate how much latent racism still exists in this country, or at least in certain parts of this country. And I would bet a huge chunk of that 90% or so not voting for Obama will insist that it wasn’t for reasons of race, and that they ‘don’t see color.’ What many well-meaning people don’t understand is that while people may not be intentionally racist, subtle racial biases can still exist without one even being aware of it. In this case, the obstinate belief that one is not at all racist actually makes one more likely to be subtly unconsciously biased. The only way one can truly be unbiased is to at least acknowledge the possibility of bias, coupled with a strong sense of self-awareness and honesty in confronting one’s own biases, however subtle.
Posted by: Gene L | January 26, 2008, 6:23 am 6:23 am
I am so sick and tired of HILLARY…here is some food for thought:
1. Since 1988 we have been governed by TWO families the BUSH’S and the CLINTON’S
2.Millions of jobs have left America, DEMAND AN ANSWER FROM HILLARY WILL THEY ON DAY ONE IF ELECTED repeal NAFTA ( a gift from HILLAY in the 90′s)?
3.Universal Healthcare…HILLARY wasn’t successful in the 90′s because the majority of Americans do not support it, and it FAILED. Ask HILLARY IS THAT A FAIRYTALE?
4. 40% of Americans said they WOULD NOT VOTE FOR HILLARY BEFORE THE PRIMARIES…IF ONE COUPLE CAN CAUSE SUCH DIVISION IN THEIR OWN PARTY, WHAT COULD THEY DO TO THE NATION?
HILLARY DIVIDERS!
Posted by: McCainWILLWIN! | January 26, 2008, 7:19 am 7:19 am
I am African American man who was going to vote for Hillary now I am going to vote for Obama because I am so tired of Bill attacking Obama. I am a demoncrate all I see is Bill not Hillary most of the time on tv. I wittness how Obama fight for poor American I use to live in Chicago I seen how help get better school in the poor area of chicago and also how he protest to keep the steel workers from losen there jobsa nd home. All American wake up it time to make changes so we the American people could have a voice in the white house I know Obama will make a good president.
Posted by: Dre Atlanta | January 26, 2008, 8:47 am 8:47 am
Fabricating the polls to justify the predetermined outcome. Ahh, yellow journalism, and democracy. One could not exist without the other!
Posted by: ugh! | January 26, 2008, 9:35 am 9:35 am
Obama surrogates have been feeding the press with nasty comments on Hillary since last summer, not to mention putting down Edwards. They miscalculated the whole power of the “wave” and thought only the hype and slogans will give them victory. The fact is that the country needs more than empty slogans and fancy word, the country needs a leader and Obama hasn’t shown any leadership in his professional or public life. Period!
Obama has been whining all the time, whine whine and whine and thats another character issue he needs to address. We don’t want another whiner in the White House!
Posted by: Sara, Georgia | January 26, 2008, 10:10 am 10:10 am
The polls are a lie to prepare you for the already fixed result of this election. This is the truth no matter how many times this fact gets censored. Just ask the voters in NH.
Posted by: ugh! | January 26, 2008, 10:24 am 10:24 am
Obama voted for as follows:
1. The Patriot Act
2. Every bill for further funding of
the war.
3. The Energy Bill(commonly referred to
as the Dick Cheney bill) which confers
huge tax subsidies to the oil
companies.
He is an eloquent speaker, he is charismatic, but his voting record in congress on most of the important issues is abysmal. Please, look at the rrecord, not the television face.
Posted by: demi | January 26, 2008, 10:27 am 10:27 am
The news is afraid of Obama since he is black. When in history did someone have so much mud on them get a free pass in the press. NOW the Obama bots always bring up old news about false charges the Clintons had. That picture Obama camp made up will backfire, since it draws attention to Obama and Rezko
Posted by: James deanny | January 26, 2008, 10:31 am 10:31 am
The media have decided that we will have 3 Democrats to choose from. It eliminated the working class’ candidate, Kucinich, from the get-go. So, what do we do. Clinton? A couple of problems here: She is a part of the Democratic machine which has failed us miserably since the Reagan regime. She voted for the war. Okay, then. Obama? As I posted earlier, what he says and how he votes are inconsistent. And he has stated repeatedly in the debates, that he will swiftly retaliate in a military fashion over any attack on the U.S. We already have a president who has done this, right? Edwards? Well, he voted for the war, as well, but has since apologized for that and has said the troops will be withdrawn as quickly as possible. Edwards is a trial lawyer. Trial lawyers (despite what republicans say) are the little man’s last resort against the abuses heaped on us by big corporations, big business, and big government. I agree that it is a sorry lot to choose from, but given all the above, I will be voting for John Edwards. Thanks for reading.
Posted by: demi | January 26, 2008, 10:45 am 10:45 am
I agree with the AP. Clinton has won South Carolina, in that her shameless campaign has effectively sold the perception that this race is about race. Obama’s win in South Carolina will be seen in the same light as Jackson’s win in Michigan.
The Clintons have neither the character nor integrity we deserve in the White House.
They may well win the nomination with this tactic, but the good news is they can’t win the general election. The bad news is a Republican would, and the GOP also regains the House of Representatives.
Posted by: Paul | January 26, 2008, 11:33 am 11:33 am
Someone called Obama a “bungler?” He’s running an effective campaign against perhaps the dirtiest political machine we’ve ever seen, and he’s doing this coming from more than 20 points behind, and now there’s talk the contest may not be decided after Super Tuesday.
I’d say the only bungling campaign is the one that lost the 20-point lead. Let’s face it – the Clintons did run a bad campaign, until they opted for a shameless, dirty tactic. At those kinds of campaigns, they are apparently very good – but only because most voters don’t pay attention.
Posted by: Paul | January 26, 2008, 11:37 am 11:37 am
okay, whatever it takes, we need a Democrat in the White House. While i do not subscribe to the theory that any Democrat is better than a Republican (do you really want Joe Lieberman to be president?), I do subscribe to the theory that anybody is better than the current regime and any lapdogs they might support (John McCain).
Here is the thing. Unfortunately, it will probably be Obama or Clinton. Let us look beyond 2008 and keep this passion we have alive. The first order of business should be to hold the congressional Democrats’ feet to the fire. If we have a Democrat in the White House, it should be much easier to get significant legislation passed.
The other thing (and probably most important) is to immediately start the reformation of our voting system. Specifically, we need to eliminate the electoral vote and we need to get rid of the electronic voting machines. Can we all agree on that, and find organizations to join,that promote these ideas? Meanwhile, vote your conscience in the primaries.
Posted by: demi | January 26, 2008, 12:04 pm 12:04 pm
Demi: well said. Mark me down as agreeing with you.
Posted by: Ward | January 26, 2008, 3:16 pm 3:16 pm
I would say you’re right. Obama cannot be President because that would be akin to a Dynasty since he and Cheney are family.
Posted by: irma | January 26, 2008, 6:13 pm 6:13 pm
Do you see anyone out there who can stop this hate-filled rhetoric, now or after Nov. 4?
Posted by: reese | January 26, 2008, 6:33 pm 6:33 pm
dear ward, thank you for your kind words.
Posted by: demi | January 26, 2008, 6:35 pm 6:35 pm