SC Yellow Dogs

The Times and Democrat gave us it opinion on President-elect Barack Obama’s appointments. What’s your opinion?

 Hillary will be a wise choice to represent U.S.

THE ISSUE: Hillary Clinton as secretary of state

OUR OPINION: Obama, U.S. will be winner with Hillary as face of U.S. diplomacy

Remember the TV spot about the phone ringing in the middle of the night at the White House? Hillary Rodham Clinton’s point was that she was better equipped to deal with an international crisis than Barack Obama.

In the Democratic presidential primary race, Clinton pounded away at Obama’s inexperience with foreign affairs. She touted her experience as making her more qualified to deal with issues on the international stage.

It appears now that Clinton is ready to provide that very experience as a key player in the Obama administration that takes over in January. Reports have it that Clinton will become Obama’s secretary of state, thus becoming the leading representative for the United States in international affairs.

The selection by Obama is a logical one. By bringing her onto the team, he has turned the former adversary into a key ally who will have every reason to work closely with the new president. Had she remained in the Senate, Clinton would have been an Obama supporter. But every lawmaker, particularly one with Clinton’s national stature, has priorities. There is no guarantee that any lawmaker will be an Obama ally in every instance.

Internationally, Clinton and her husband, former President Bill Clinton, enjoy great popularity and respect. Hillary will be welcomed as secretary of state. Bill will be a great asset as a former president and leader with international clout.

The challenges will be many. Russia is showing it is ready to be a major international player again and doing so at the expense of U.S. influence. China is doing much the same. The nuclear issue with Iran is a top priority. North Korea, Africa, Latin America: The list of problems and priorities goes on and on.

Clinton has been highly critical of the Bush administration and its approach to diplomacy. She has stressed the need for engaging adversaries and working through friends to defuse crises. Obama has been on the same page, going so far as to say during the campaign he believed the president should talk directly with leaders of states such as Iran and North Korea.

Ironically, Clinton was critical of Obama as being ready to propose such direct presidential talks without preconditions. Generally, a secretary of state would hold talks ahead of any session between heads of state. She won’t be talking to foreign leaders as president, but Clinton will be the key player on the international stage just as she said she should be.

State Senator Darrell Jackson (D-Richland) today announced plans to introduce legislation to enact early voting in South Carolina. Jackson says North Carolina’s early voting system should serve as a model for South Carolina.

Currently South Carolina only has absentee voting in person or by mail. Voters must meet certain requirements to vote by absentee ballot such as health reasons or if their work hours keep them unable to vote on election.

Jackson’s plan would eliminate those requirements and make early voting available to all registered voters.

“With this year’s level of voter participation and enthusiasm, South Carolina needs to be better prepared to handle high voter turnout. Early voting would be an effective tool in addressing long lines at polling places and making it easier for people to participate in the election process,” said Jackson.

Under Jackson’s proposal, modeled after North Carolina’s system, counties would open early voting locations and allow all registered voters within the county to vote. North Carolina early voting begins the third Thursday before the election and ends the Saturday prior to the election.

“This would eliminate the sometimes daunting paperwork that voters and election workers have to complete. Voters should be able to just show up and vote early,” said Jackson

The NY Times has put a different perspective on this question. Read this article and tell us what you think?

Democrats Have G.O.P. to Thank, at Least in Part
By JOHN HARWOOD

The encomiums greeting Barack Obama’s victory last week presented a reverse image of the darts for John Kerry after his 2004 defeat. But Kerry campaign veterans could not help noticing a surprise in the returns.

In the battleground state of Ohio, where Mr. Kerry lost the presidency to George W. Bush, the 2.74 million votes he received almost precisely matched Mr. Obama’s 2008 total. Mr. Obama won because John McCain received 300,000 fewer votes than Mr. Bush did.

That points to a cautionary reminder for Mr. Obama and his team: the election turned partly on what they did right, but also on what Republicans did wrong. And there is no assurance that Democrats will confront a similarly star-crossed opposition in elections to come.

“We should be confident, but not cocky,” said Donald Fowler of South Carolina, a former national Democratic Party chairman. “Several things that worked against them in this campaign could change quickly.”

Among them, Mr. Fowler said of the deeply unpopular Republican incumbent in the White House, “Bush is going to disappear.”

Mr. Obama, a senator from Illinois, inarguably fashioned an impressive victory for any Democrat, much less the first black nominee in American history. His 52 percent share of the popular vote exceeded that of any Democratic candidate since Lyndon B. Johnson in 1964 — and topped Ronald Reagan’s 1980 majority against Jimmy Carter. With breakthroughs in the South, Midwest and Mountain West, Mr. Obama captured at least nine states carried by Mr. Bush in 2004, with the outcome in Missouri still unclear.

Yet the record-shattering turnout that some observers predicted appears not to have materialized. Curtis Gans of the Committee for the Study of the American Electorate projects that, when outstanding votes are tallied, the number of Americans casting ballots will fall short of the 130-million floor predicted by the McCain and Obama campaigns.

Mr. Gans ascribes that shortfall in part to diminished Republican fervor — a “demobilization” that created political openings for Mr. Obama’s disciplined campaign organization. The reasons for that begin with Mr. Bush’s political infirmity, but they do not end there.

Lacking a deep wellspring of support among conservative party regulars, Mr. McCain courted them to win the Republican nomination — in the process weakening his once-formidable standing among independents. He sought to appeal to both factions with his selection of Gov. Sarah Palin of Alaska, and saw most Americans deem her unqualified for the presidency.

The campaign’s unalloyed appeals to cultural populism drove well-educated, high-income voters to the Democratic ticket. Meantime, disarray among Congressional Republicans over the financial bailout package in September compounded injuries Republicans suffered throughout Mr. Bush’s second term to their reputation for pragmatism and competence.

Democrats “benefited greatly from tapping into voters’ frustrations about a very badly damaged Republican brand,” said Mr. McCain’s political director, Mike DuHaime, a former Republican National Committee official.

That created new campaign dynamics for the post-civil rights era in which Deep South states became the Republicans’ redoubt. Instead of distancing themselves from their national ticket, as Democrats have customarily done, the North Carolina candidate for governor Bev Perdue and the Senate candidate Kay Hagan linked themselves to Mr. Obama.

All three won in the Tar Heel state, and Democrats gained a House seat for the second consecutive election. After controlling a majority of North Carolina House seats at the outset of Mr. Bush’s term, Republicans now hold just 5 of 13.

“Without Bush and Cheney and Rove, the Democrats couldn’t have done what they did” in 2006 or 2008, observed David Rohde, a political scientist at Duke University. In his first television advertisement for the Dec. 2 Senate runoff in Georgia with the Republican incumbent, Saxby Chambliss, the Democratic Senate candidate, Jim Martin, promises to “work with Barack Obama to get our economy moving again.”

Democratic veterans warn against assuming the party can sustain such successes against a reinvigorated Republican opposition. “The country remains very evenly divided,” said Harold Ickes, a former deputy chief of staff in the Clinton administration. “The lease on the office space is likely very short.”

Indeed, Mr. Clinton’s experience highlights the risks. The misadventures of his first two White House years helped pave the way for the Republican Revolution led by Newt Gingrich that ousted Democrats from control of Congress.

After four years in the Senate, Mr. Obama may move into 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue with closer ties to the Democratic Congress than Mr. Clinton brought from the Arkansas governor’s mansion. If he gives higher priority than Mr. Clinton did to party-building below the presidential level, Mr. Fowler said, the political breakthroughs may continue.

“If we improve as much between now and 2012 as we did between 2004 and 2008,” Mr. Fowler predicted, “we can win South Carolina.”

Here’s a really good one from The State.

Election fires up S.C. Democrats
By JOHN O’CONNOR
Posted on Fri, Nov. 07, 2008

On Sunday, Irmo resident Roberta Carroway was in Charlotte working for U.S. Sen. Barack Obama’s presidential campaign to turn North Carolina blue for the first time since 1976.

Carroway was one of roughly 1,500 to 2,000 South Carolinians who headed north to knock on doors or who placed nearly 30,000 telephone calls from campaign phone banks in South Carolina.

When Obama officially won North Carolina on Thursday, Carroway said she felt like she had a role in reshaping regional politics.

“I’m so excited. That’s a truly Southern state,” Carroway, 43 said. “Change can come … that’s very positive that that state is more progressive.”

Carroway was among a group of neighbors organized around their mutual support of Obama, and inspired by other supporters from around the country who volunteered in South Carolina during the campaign.

These volunteers were supposed to provide a tailwind for Democratic candidates across South Carolina.

But when the results were counted, South Carolina remained Republican red. Presidential nominee John McCain easily won the state and Democrats failed to win any GOP-held Congressional seats.

Still, Democrats point to signs of progress:

• At polling places around the state, Democrats recorded more votes than they did in 2004, cutting the Republican margin of victory for president in half.

• Turnout was high among black voters, a traditional pillar of the party.

• Young voters broke for Obama. Among those younger than 45, according to exit polling, 55 percent voted for Obama.

• Democrats gained two seats in the state House of Representatives. This is the third straight election Democrats have gained State House seats, however few.

• Democrats implemented new, successful get-out-the-vote techniques.

“When you think about how red this state was,” said Joe Erwin, a former state Democratic Party chairman of the presidential results, “that’s a huge hill to climb.

“It’s a very, very positive sign. It’s a great accomplishment.”

Obama’s campaign, state Democrats said, could have two lasting effects.

The first is the network of activists, such as Carroway, the campaign built from the ground up. Many of these voters, Erwin said, had tuned out on politics.

The campaign used cell phones, text messages, e-mail and the Internet to keep in direct, personal communication. That network helped supporters stay in touch as well.

Obama, both Carroway and Erwin said, created a sense of community where members regularly challenged each other to do just a little more: one more donation; one more call; one more voter registration.

Columbia attorney Dick Harpootlian, a veteran Democratic adviser and former party chairman, said Obama’s campaign was the best he’s ever seen.

“There are many, many folks who came into this process because of him who will stay in the process,” Harpootlian said.

Obama’s campaign spent no money on S.C. advertising. Republicans hold the money advantage here, he said, and the constant opposition to Obama hurts local candidates as well.

“There’s no counterweight to that,” advertising critical of Obama and Democrats, Harpootlian said. “It’s no surprise that candidates were affected.”

The second impact is on demographics.

Democrats believe they now have the advantage with young voters, one they can maintain even as those voters age.

Obama “helped us solidify a couple key constituencies that were up for grabs,” said former Gov. Jim Hodges. “Young voters are going to be Democrats and they’re going to stay Democrats.”

Others noted that both Charleston County and Richland County councils grew more Democratic, and that Democrats are gaining traction between the Midlands and the coast.

U.S. Rep. James Clyburn said Democrats are no longer conceding seats of retiring Democrats, noting the state Senate win of Greenwood’s black mayor Floyd Nicholson in a majority-white district.

But there are still problems.

Republicans hold the money edge in S.C., and Obama’s fundraising ability is not something Democrats can expect to continue.

Likewise, Clyburn and others were disappointed that Democrats could not manage a serious challenge against U.S. Sen. Lindsey Graham. The Democratic nominee, Bob Conley, backed Republican Ron Paul for president and refused to endorse Obama.

But Carroway and others said they have been emboldened this year. The governor’s race, she said, is just two years away and it’s time to get to work.

“We got our eyes now. We know how to bring ourselves together,” Carroway said. “We can do it. We’re not going to let this die.”