Boston Globe's Canellos on SC primary: "[A] lot of black women voted as blacks rather than as women"
Discussing the results of the January 26 South Carolina Democratic presidential primary, Boston Globe Washington bureau chief Peter Canellos said on C-SPAN's Washington Journal that the female vote in South Carolina "was a little bit skewed, obviously, because a lot of black women voted as blacks rather than as women in this case."
According to CNN's South Carolina exit poll, women comprised 61 percent of voters in the Democratic primary, and 54 percent of them voted for Sen. Barack Obama (D-IL). Black women comprised 35 percent of voters, with 78 percent of them voting for Obama.
From the 7 a.m. ET hour of the January 27 edition of C-SPAN's Washington Journal:
GRETA WODELE (anchor): And what about Hillary Clinton's second-place win? What does it mean for her going forward?
CANELLOS: Well, it's sort of hard to say. I mean, I think that there was a little bit of feeling in the Clinton campaign that there could be a knock-out punch delivered in South Carolina. The big unknown was whether the black vote would go significantly for Obama. He was probably going to win it anyway, but whether he would get 60 percent, 70 percent, 80 percent, and exit polls say he got 80 and above. They also showed a very substantial black turnout. So, I think that's, you know, that's bad news for her, but it certainly doesn't undermine her core strength, which is with working-class voters.
WODELE: What about women? What about female voters? How did they vote in South Carolina? And what does that mean for Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton?
CANELLOS: Well, it was a little bit skewed, obviously, because a lot of black women voted as blacks rather than as women in this case. So, Obama won the women's vote, but by a smaller margin than the men's vote. I think the -- I think that Clinton has shown that she's able to appeal to particularly a certain older demographic of women and really get them to turn out in the polls, and I expect that would continue on February 5. I think it's going to be very competitive.
This whole racial/gender component is just silly from the get-go, but the media will keep discussing it anyway. That being said, I am not sure what MMFA's beef is here - the exit polls did show that black women voted overwhelmingly for Obama over Clinton, so in that respect they did vote "as blacks rather than as women".
Unless MMFA is just taking this whole thing to task and are tired of it, then if that is the case, I totally agree. Can't we leave race and gender out of it, please?........(in your dreams)
"I am not sure what MMFA's beef is here - the exit polls did show that black women voted overwhelmingly for Obama over Clinton, so in that respect they did vote 'as blacks rather than as women.'"
That statement assumes that all black people are somehow supposed to vote for Obama simply because he's black, and that all women are supposed to vote for Clinton simply because she's a woman. It's a ridiculous generalization that manages to be both racist and sexist at the same time.
You misunderstood him, because his post was a little convoluted. Sorry Tommy, but it was. You did seem to suggest that they actually did vote for Obama because they are black. Good to see your with us on this one, though I had a feeling you would be ;)
I don't know how many of you watch Bill Maher, but this past weekend he had a reporter for CNN on who went to a hair salon in LA to talk to 6 black women about their choices for president. Their answers were really surprising and well-informed, which I am sure would bewilder most of the news media today.
A lot of voters voted as voters, rather than stereotyped CATEGORIES that the press wishes to label them with.
Sure, maybe SOME people voted because of the race or gender of the candidates, or how they wear their hair or what they've said about their relationship with God.
The POINT is, these media talkers DON'T KNOW why individuals voted as they did, and this goes for groups as well. They can GUESS, of course, but GUESSES aren't NEWS, and aren't FACTS.
REPORTERS have simply become too accustomed to being asked for their OPINIONS, and giving them without any disclaimers that, hey, it's just my opinion, and hey, I might be 180 degrees off base and WRONG.
Hi Tommy,
I would love for the media to leave race and gender out of it, but both race and gender seem to transfix them. I really, really, really hope if they stay on this tangent that they break down the white male vote in the main election ;). Then they can say, if its Obama that I voted as a wait...an INDIVIDUAL if I vote for Obama ;)?
If I am white, can I still vote for Barack Obama? Just wondering if there was some new rule of which I was unaware that perhaps just went into effect...
Thanks...that's a relief. So I guess we can all still vote for whomever we damn well please.
The subtext I'm reading in commentaries about race and gender voting patterns is that there is something inherently unfair about blacks voting for blacks or women voting for women. I don't pick that up in the media when there are evangelicals voting en masse for evangelicals.
Off Topic
There is a new online magazine that everyone show take.
http://www.theroot.com/
Lynn, I have to agree with you. I never thought, in my wildest dreams, that Bill Clinton would be using Lee Atwater tactics to marginalize Obama. His comment where he compared Obama to Jesse Jackson was a complete slap in the face to not only those black voters who voted for Obama, but to many black people who admire the Clintons. He made it seem as though black voters aren't really a big deal to him.
I said it once and I'll say it again: he ruined ANY chance for a big turn out of black voters to support Hillary Clinton if she becomes the nominee. Now I'm starting to wonder if white and black conservatives were right all along about the Clintons speaking a good game to black voters but don't really give a damn about them overall.
Actually Preston, I believe the Clinton’s care about the winning the White house more then they care about insulting anyone. They probably like Blacks just fine, but they’re not going to let that get in the way. It’s first things first, and one has to have their priorities in proper order (smile). Bill will apologize later for any “misunderstanding” and he’ll look directly in the camera and explain exactly what they really meant. Their strategy is working pretty well. They have actually perfected Atwater’s tactic. I think they’ve actually have gained more White supporters by positioning themselves as the victims of overly sensitive and whiny Black people and the out of control PC in the mainstream press. Pat’ Buchanan is correct; the Clintons are freaking political geniuses. You know P I never actually thought that most Republican politicians and officials were hard-core racist themselves. Now many of them appeared to be indifferent to minorities and that indifference lead to insensitive comments from time to time, BUT the official Republican world for political gain never hesitated to tap into and exploit and encourage the racists and "racial" feelings that I believe are still quite prevalent in mainstream society for. If it meant pitting group against group what the hell, it was all about the win! The truth is that some Liberal Whites harbor these “racial” feelings as well, although those feelings are generally kept under wraps. I do know that all those White People that vacate communities when Blacks move in aren't all winger Republicans. Now please don't misunderstand me, I don't think that the majority of Whites hate Blacks or wish them any harm in particular. But there is this undercurrent of sentiment that keeps some of them considering Blacks as those others that they are uncomfortable being around when Blacks are assembled in large numbers, and they also seem to believe that a neighborhood's status is tainted when occupied "too many Blacks. I've experience White flight twice in my almost 50 years. It happened once as a young teen-ager when my family moved into a predominantly White neighborhood and then again as an adult. Our segregated neighborhoods are much nicer communities with nicer houses then the neighborhoods we had before, and we’ve got more choices now. They are actually very nice middle class neighborhoods that just happen to be occupied by brown people. Nevertheless that's kind of where most of us are relegated to live unless you have the energy and you really really want to spend a life time chasing White people all around your home state. We also have much nicer jobs then before and there are interaction with our Whites colleagues and co-workers and those colleagues and co-workers will sometimes make you their "Black friend. Hell they will even invite you over to their all white neighborhood for a cookout. ". But damn is there lot of pressure in being the “Black friend” because often everything you do and say becomes the representative example of how millions of Black people think and how they behave. Oh yeah we’ve better jobs and we make a lot more money, but then there is that cement ceiling thing at work. Things have changed tremendously from the times my parents and grandparents have told me about, but I wonder is this as good as it gets. Will the majority always behave like this? Who knows huh?
Exit polling is obsessed with race & the media is obsessed with analyzing it. But let Bill Clinton remark about South Carolina & how they voted & he's accused of injecting race into the mix according to the media.
Anyone else see this as convoluted hypocritical thinking?
Jeter,
Bill Clinton is the best politician to come along in more years than many of us can count. His statement about Obama was exactly what he intended to say, Obama won South Carolina mainly because he was black.
When Jackson won South Carolina in 84 & 88 did he win in all but two counties? When Jackson won South Carolina in 84 & 88 did he defeat his opponent by more than 2 to 1? Did Jessie Jackson win across most demographic groups? Did Jackson receive nearly 25% of the white vote when he won South Carolina? No What do Obama and Jessie Jackson have in common besides both winning South Carolina? Both men are black, maybe? Bill knew exactly what he was doing when he made that Jessie Jackson comment. He’s too damn smart not to realize what he said.
Yes the media plays up the race issue but Bill’s hands are not clean.
It's a legitimate question whether Obama can continue to expand his base as the primaries move into the other states. That's undeniable.
I think the way Bill Clinton phrased this issue was tone deaf, knowing how hair-trigger the reaction would be.
There's different ways to say things without upsetting people.
Irony, I would expect Sean, Bill and other right-wingers to make a big deal out of South Carolina. THEY would like nothing more than to have the Democratic party divided. THEY hate Hillary and any fight between Hillary & Obama simply fuels their rabid hatred for the Clintons. Comments from them I ignore because I always "consider the source".
My concern IS that the Democratic party is actually becoming divided. If the goal is to defeat Republicans how can that be accomplish if there is division. For myself I'm none to pleased and I'm not alone. The 2 term Democratic President stumping like he's running against Republicans but he's actually running against another Democrat. Is that a media driven story or is it actually true? When former President Bush campaigned for Junior did he speak about McCain as Bill has Obama? I don’t think so. Instead of Bill trying to bring down Obama why not say Obama and Hillary have more in common than differences but Hillary has years more in experience or something else? That is not divisive and it still supports Hillary. Bill doesn't do that, instead he a an expert at artful, crafty language and even better at "The media has it wrong" or that's not what I meant".
Yes, South Carolina blacks voted in a large percentage for Obama but Bill cannot deny that he had hoped to cut into that black Obama vote otherwise they HE would stayed at home. But that was not the only reason that his victory was news. His margin of victory was the largest out of all the primary races to date. The win amount for Obama alone was more than the total amount of Democratic voters in the 2004 primary. But all Bill can say is both Obama and Jessie Jackson won in South Carolina. The media may be reading to much into South Carolina or it may be reflecting on the point of no return.
I do understand that some media types will go to the extreme when hearing the name Clinton. If the media had gone after Junior like they have the Clintons we might not have had Junior in office for the last 7 years but the Clintons hands are not clean. They have issues. It's a fact that has to be faced. They WILL receive more media attention than any other candidate and probably more negative than positive but is all the blame of the media or does some of it belong to the Clintons. Truthfully I’m tired of both Hillary and Bill. This started out as an exciting Democratic race that IMO now feels like a oxygen deprived chamber.
Hey Pearlene,
Bill Clinton's remarks concerning Jesse Jackson made me wince, but some in the media had suggested that Obama should do well in South Carolina because of the large Black population. So I don't see how that is much different than what Clinton was implying. Yet the media jumped all over Bill Clinton, which is what I found a tad hypocritical. Granted Bill Clinton's motives for his observation may be different than that of the media, still this obsession over race has turned this primary season rather ugly. IMO.
So Canellos will have to decide whether to vote as a man or a white?
Give us all a break.