It's hard to avoid, but try not to buy wholly into simplistic media spin of SC results

[jpgray]

There is little doubt that the rancor between Obama and Clinton was a factor, but I'd wager the media script for today will be that a solid Obama win is caused solely by a "turning away" or "recoil" from the Clinton campaign's comments. While this is undoubtedly true to some extent, it is not the whole story. Such simplistic analysis is unfair to SC voters, who (like you and I) are able to keep more than one idea in their heads at once. Obama may well have achieved his victory at this level on his own merits -in addition- to the widely publicized internecine squabbling. While that little nastiness doubtless had its effect, reducing the motivations of many thousands of people to a simplistic, pleasing media script is offensive to me, and should be offensive to you.

One should note how the most divisive component possible of Obama's victory is getting the most press. What effect might that have on party solidarity? The media love this sort of thing--we shouldn't. A triumphant SC victory should -not- be explained wholly as a result of Bill Clinton shooting off his mouth. Voters doubtless saw something positive in Obama to vote for; they didn't just see something negative in Clinton to vote against.

I have no dog in this race as far as Clinton vs. Obama, as I support Edwards. I just don't want to see the SC results used as a tool to pit Democrats against each other via a widely publicized media script that attributes Obama's success to divisiveness rather than the candidate's own merits.

[WHEN CRABS ROAR]

1. But the press WILL spin this to death.

[jpgray]

3. It should be at least as much about Obama's quality as a candidate, but it won't be

It'll be about the divisiveness. I just hope people keep in mind that maybe not everyone who voted Obama was thinking "That'll show that Bill Clinton!" Perhaps they were also thinking about why they -support- Obama.

[GoldieAZ49]

2. Edwards should have done better too

Had the Clintons not bought the following robocalls in SC
Guess she didn't want to come in third!

http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/0108/Clinton_robocalls_hit_Edwards.html

Hello, This is the Hillary Clinton for President Campaign.

Before you vote on Saturday, you should know that John Edwards voted for permanent trade relations with China. That’s right, John Edwards voted for the bill that cost thousands of jobs. Like the ones in the textile mills he talks about so much down here.

You should also know that John Edwards made nearly a half a million dollars working for a Wall Street investment fund. A fund that’s been profiting on foreclosing on the homes of families; including 100 homes right here in South Carolina. That’s according to The State newspaper. Here in South Carolina, Edwards says he’s one of us, but up on Wall Street he was just another one of them.

Can you trust John Edwards?

[jpgray]

4. I don't like that sort of political maneuvering, but it's a part of campaigning

The Clintons should avoid all the unnecessary divisiveness, but it is -not- in my opinion the only reason for Obama's presumptive big victory.