Barack Obama wins big in South Carolina

Good for Barack! He worked very hard in South Carolina and deserves to win. It's all about SUPER Tuesday now and Hillary is projected, by most polls, to win 2-to-1 over Barack!

Sounds like a nail biter to the end!

With 25 percent of precincts reporting, Obama had 53 percent, Clinton had 27 percent and Edwards had 19 percent.

From the results it looks like he clinched a strong victory. Not sure about Clinton being "not far behind" - she's so far behind she's almost in another state.

Sorry, hard to believe John Edwards only has 19% in this so far. He wins the polls, people voted after the debate that he won it... and then this? It is looking more and more like the media is setting up this election to be between only these two choices, and it stinks. And I also believe that because South Carolina is an open primary that may have helped Obama get first and Clinton second, as well as it being decided along racial and gender lines. How it serves the best interests of this country to vote for someone just because they are black or a woman is beyond me. I am sticking with John Edwards through Super Tuesday because he has the best policies and hope that we can all move on from the race and gender card playing and see some campaigning based on ISSUES.

Mark my words: If Hillary gets the nomination, the republicans will win the white house. McCain will be the GOP nominee and he appeals to independents much more than Hillary, not to mention the fact that she will also lose some of the democrats as well.

http://blog.washingtonpost.com/the-trail/2007/10/29/post_159.html

From this it also looks like Obama used religion and anti-gay sentiment to boost his votes in South Carolina. And if so, I am disgusted by it. When Republicans do this it is seen as smarmy, and I don't think it is any less smarmy when Democrats do it. So where does Obama really stand in regards to gay rights? Perhaps that should be a question for all candidates at the next debate.

I wish John Edwards had done better in his home state, but I'm not giving up on him.

I'm look at Edwards. I'm glad Obama is beating out Hillary - just feel she's too close to the political machinery - i.e., big money.

Maybe Obama is also, I don't know.

Edwards only got 18% in his OWN home state? Man, that speaks volumes.

mrodriguez: More than a few talking heads in the media (who are really controlling this primary) predicted quite some time ago that the two candidates for the general election would be McCain and Mrs. Clinton. This is what they want and they are orchestrating it to be that way...and then trying to convince US that we, the people, really DO want "Old D.C." when it comes to our politicians. If you really want to change this country....change the media along with your elected representatives. That's why outlets such as Current and LinkTv need more public support.

http://a4.g.akamai.net/f/4/19675/0/newmill.download.akamai.com/19677/anon.newmediamill/pdfs/Questionnaire_ReportCard.pdf Really? According to this link from the link you posted they ALL oppose gay marriage except Gravel and Kucinich. However, if I am not mistaken, Edwards had stated that should he be elected he would move to repeal DOMA, and I will try to find exactly where I read that and post it. Here it is:http://www.johnedwards.com/issues/lgbt/ And also, when you look at the websites for both Obama and Clinton, neither of them specifically mention LGBT issues. Why is that?

smorrisey - bros before hoes? Can't we just congratulate Obama without the sexism?

Jan - it's going to be ok. The inevitable Obama/Edwards ticket will create more change than this country can even begin to fathom.

Great job Obama

We dont need a puppet as president

You are correct...none of the 3 democratic candidates actually support gay marriage (but do support civil unions) on their websites or otherwise and yes neither Hillary nor Obama directly mention LGBT rights like John Edwards on their websites but I updated my facts to be correct based on what I've seen during debates and speeches and what is actually available on the news sources with that info.

Is it sad that the only thing that I could think of when I read this was "total pwnage"?

Good for Obama. This will make Hillary get even more real and prove she's not the shill some make her out to be. As long as I never have to hear Bill Clinton refered to as, "America's First Black President", ever again. That's wrong on so many levels.

Until either gays or evangelicals outnumber everyone else, gay rights simply won't be a main issue. I don't say that to be insensitive or rude, just being honest. We are all faced with issues of such larger consequences right now.

^barkway:
the rights of people, no matter who they are, is central to all "issues of such larger consequence." when someone lacks the ability to stand up for an underrepresented group, they are making statement about all of the issues... from gay marrage to war to peace to the economy to health care to love to "terrorism"

Obama got it right. He decided to be inclusive rather than divisive on LGBT issues. McClurkin has often said that he does not wish to "convert" the happily homosexual, but for him, it was a choice of living a life full of shame and confusion because he was sexually assaulted by a male family member in his youth, or dealing with his feelings and convictions to do what made him feel better as a human being. Perhaps I would not have made the same choice to deal with my feelings that way, but it sounds like McClurkin isn't so much homophobic as misundersood. He isn't saying that being gay is a curse or a choice for everybody; he is saying that because of his particular circumstances, his sexual identity, namely his sexual orientation, got confused, and that is why he felt ashamed and cursed. I think his message for similarly affected people who are stuggling with their sexual orientation because of same gender sexual assault in their youth, societal pressure to behave heterosexual, and religious convictions or messages that tell them that homosexuality is wrong, is perhaps one way of resolving it--through prayer. I don't think that is homophobic, it is just HIS answer or solution. While I don't agree with McClurkin per se, I think he has a right to his beliefs, and I think Obama got it right in making sure that he did not exclude McClurkin or the LGBT community. Those of us who are happy with our orientation, just as spiritual or Christian as McClurkin, and who are not conflicted or confused because of youth sexual assault issues, shouldn't condemn McClurkin for his choice to advocate another way of resolving such difficult and challenging issues. If he were saying that his way was the only way, then I would take issue with him, but I think more often than not, too many of us condemn him as homophobic before hearing his whole story.

Senator Obama's win strongly suggests that the Clintons' dirty politics backfired on them. I hope that Senator Obama refuses to allow Hillary to pull him down into the mud of old politics again.

Inclusive? Does that mean he would have sat at the table with Adolf HItler to be inclusive as well? I don't buy that for one minute. He played on the anti-gay sentiment in South Carolina. He is playing poltiics just like Hilliary Clinton is, only he is being more subtle about it. John Edwards even was quoted as saying they were engaging in Chicago and NY style poltiics down there. This putting Obama in some category as if he is some sort of second coming of Christ and defending everything he does regardless of how wrong it may look as if heis somehow untouchable is exactly what got us Bush, and I'm not falling for it with him either. Bottomline: You do not allow homophobes to campaign for you if you are not a homophobe yourself. It speaks volumes about what you believe regarding constitutional rights as well, and I do not believe it will play well in other states where people will see right through it.

barkway: what issue is of larger consequence than our Democracy? I cannot believe how people ( in general) can defend hatred against gays just because they don't think it a big issue of consequence. Is that why Obama thinks Reagan had forward positive ideas? And not that I really support her, but If HIllary Clinton had this guy campaigning for her she would be put on a spit, as well as John Edwards. So tell me, what is the root of this Obama worship really? Because to be honest with you it is reminding me of the Bush worship of the Neocons and is a bit scary. Anyone with that kind of power over people can do just about anything with more power. Is that OK if the person happens to say they are a Democrat? In the link I posted people were saying Obama is from Christ. I do not trust him simple as that, and unless it can be proven to me I am wrong beyond quoting pie in the sky abstract speeches my sentiments will remain as they are.