South Carolina and the Audacity of Hope?

“...I’ll tell you who I’m voting for. I’m voting for Hillary Clinton. We need to get Bill Clinton back in the White House. Barack Obama’s a fine young man but he [has] no business running for president...No way is any black man getting elected president in the United States of America--not in my lifetime and not in yours! If he gets elected there’ll be rioting in the streets the likes of which [you’ve] never seen. And they’ll kill him. They’ll kill him.”
— October, 2007, a 67 year old Pageland African American voter

The Obama campaign has been nothing if not a phenomenal movement. I’ve been following Barack since he declared for president in February 2007, covering events, interviewing voters. The bulk of Obama’s support, early on, was very white and very liberal; idealists who were against the war in Iraq, worried about health care, education, poverty and a toxic political climate where Republicans hated Democrats, Democrats hated Republicans. The senator from Illinois had a record of bridging the great divide and getting things done during his tenure as a Democrat in the Illinois legislature. Conservatives liked him. Independents liked him. His message of open communication, of both sides listening to each other and working together for the common good resonated with folks who wanted peace — in D.C. as well as in the Middle East.
He was the long-shot of all time. Broad support in the African American community was hard to come by; they feared for his safety, the Clinton mystique was strong and there was little faith in the electability of Barack Obama. White America could not be trusted to back a black candidate for president. But the Obama movement took hold. Massive volunteer support nationwide grew in size and in commitment. “Impossible” became “Maybe” as crowds at Obama events numbered in the enthusiastic thousands again and again.
Then came the Iowa caucuses and a predominantly white state said Yes to the Audacity of Hope. The notion that “White folks won’t vote for and African American” was blown away. Even here, in South Carolina, where the Clinton candidacy was seen as an impassable juggernaut, the momentum shifted.
In a WCSC (CBS, Charleston)/Survey USA poll of 3000 likely voters statewide on the eve of the New Hampshire primary, Barack Obama won 50% of the vote to Hillary Clinton’s 30%. A twenty point spread. Edwards trailed with 16%.
South Carolina, home of the Dixiecrats and Jim Crow, regarded as a racist haven by much of the nation, was poised to make history. New Hampshire, where Obama was behind Clinton in double digits only a few weeks ago, was suddenly in play. Media hyped a major upset: Obama by a wide enough margin to cripple the Clinton campaign. The mainstream media set the stage and prevailing wisdom was that, if Barack didn’t beat Clinton by at least ten points, well...maybe she was inevitable after all. He lost, in what was very nearly a statistical tie, by 2.6 points. He did tie HRC in winning NH delegates. He won nine, she won nine. He is, as the campaigns move on to Nevada and South Carolina, ahead of Hillary Clinton by one delegate. On Jan. 26 it’s our turn. Does a very slim majority of New Hampshire voters dictate the outcome here? Does support wane because another largely “white” state wasn’t a clear, commanding win for the African American candidate? Does race matter more than intelligence and humane governance? Does gender matter in “toughness”? Do we want a whole new approach in Washington or do we want to reprise the Clinton administration?
Joe Biden predicted that the next Democratic nominee for president would be determined in South Carolina. It seems we matter now, and that’s uncharted territory for us. It’s pretty potent, folks. Who are we South Carolina Democrats anyway? What do we believe in? How courageous are we willing to be on Jan. 26, 2008?

By Linda Hansen, columnist