Obama won by a 2-1 margin over Hillary yesterday in South Carolina, and while some of the articles out there are noting the huge turnout of African Americans as a cause for the sweeping victory, just as many are blaming the Clintons for their strategic use of race in this last week. If this is how a Clinton Administration would strategize to fight a war, or even to fight the Republicans in the Fall, then they’ve shown us a degree of vulnerability in South Carolina, losing far worse after they initiated the strategy than they were before. Gee, seems the definition of incompetence to me. Meanwhile, the Philadelphia Inquirer is endorsing Barack Obama, and their endorsement notes werll that Hillary will have a tough time in the fall because of the baggage that comes with her. From the Inquirer:

But in an election where change is the operative word, would the former first lady represent that? After two Bush presidencies, many Americans don’t see change in a Clinton dynasty. Hillary’s high negatives in polls may have more to do with her husband’s behavior as president than anything she has done since. But those negatives suggest she could be a catalyst for division when the nation longs for unity.

Given that, BARACK OBAMA is the best Democrat to lead this nation past the nasty, partisan, Washington-as-usual politics that have blocked consensus on Iraq; politics that never blinked at the greedy, subprime mortgage schemes that could spawn a recession; politics that have greatly diminished our country’s stature in the world.

Obama inspires people to action. And while inspiration alone isn’t enough to get a job done, it’s a necessary ingredient to begin the hard work.

Obama’s appeal to Americans to have the audacity to hope, even in the face of tragedies such as 9/11 and Hurricane Katrina, has fallen on fertile ground. Americans want desperately to believe they can overcome any difficulty - given the right leadership.

As the NY Times notes, Obama was tested by the Clintons this last week or so, and he may come out of this stronger. The Times stays on the theme of racial politics, and I’m not so sure that’s warranted, despite the fact that the African American vote is what gave Obama a landslide in South Carolina. This is the deep south, after all, a place where just four years ago an ugly racist whisper campaign about John McCain, one that was totally false, vaulted George Bush to victory. For a black man to follow that just eight years later with 24% of the vote is signigficant. Perhaps the national pundits are not ready to say that race is still a more significant issue in South Carolina, or throughout the South, but I’m not. Jena wasn’t in the deep South by accident.

The real thrust of Obama’s victory here might be seen in his acceptance speech last night. He was a bit on the defense from the veiled attacks by the Clinton camp this past week, or so I thought. This here sounds like he’s switched on a bit of a subtle offensive stance. From his acceptance speech in the New York Times:

But there are real differences between the candidates. We are looking for more than just a change of party in the White House. We’re looking to fundamentally change the status quo in Washington. (Cheers, applause.) It’s a status quo that extends beyond any particular party. And right now that status quo is fighting back with everything it’s got, with the same old tactics that divide and distract us from solving the problems people face, whether those problems are health care that folks can’t afford or a mortgage they cannot pay.

So this will not be easy. Make no mistake about what we’re up against. We’re up against the belief that it’s all right for lobbyists to dominate our government, that they are just part of the system in Washington. But we know that the undue influence of lobbyists is part of the problem, and this election is our chance to say that we are not going to let them stand in our way anymore. (Cheers, applause.)

We’re up against the conventional thinking that says your ability to lead as president comes from longevity in Washington or proximity to the White House. But we know that real leadership is about candor and judgment and the ability to rally Americans from all walks of life around a common purpose, a higher purpose. (Cheers, applause.)

We’re up against decades of bitter partisanship that cause politicians to demonize their opponents instead of coming together to make college affordable or energy cleaner. It’s the kind of partisanship where you’re not even allowed to say that a Republican had an idea, even if it’s one you never agreed with. That’s the kind of politics that is bad for our party. It is bad for our country. And this is our chance to end it once and for all. (Cheers, applause.)

We’re up against the idea that it’s acceptable to say anything and do anything to win an election. But we know that this is exactly what’s wrong with our politics. This is why people don’t believe what their leaders say anymore. This is why they tune out. And this election is our chance to give the American people a reason to believe again. (Cheers, applause.)

As the targets of those paragraphs, it is hard to distinguish between Hillary Clinton and George Bush. They are both entrenched in Washington, they are both using the politics of division, etc. For those of us who wondered when Obama would go on the offensive, it seems this speech was a good sign, and I think we will continue to see Hillary Clinton’s name unattached to these charges, however. The characterization of the Republicans, and Washingtonian “business as usual” in such a way that it looks like Hillary Clinton being described, is enough to get the job done.

In other news, two articles of interest in the Times. First there’s a small bit in the front section tracking the success of Bush’s volunteerism initiative from the 2002 SOTU speech. Remember, that’s the one all about personal rersponsibility, and was followed by a President who squandered the notion in his own example. Yeah, that’s the analysis missing in the article, but it still is an interesting chronicle of yet another Bush failure. Also, a nice little review of a book trying to redeem Senator Joe McCarthy really tars the neocons who are trying to do the redeeming. I like this line:

Americans have learned to view him as the nation’s most dangerous modern demagogue. Pick up a dictionary and you’ll find the word “McCarthyism” defined as “the practice of publicizing accusations with insufficient regard to evidence” and “the use of unfair investigatory methods to suppress opposition.” To be labeled a McCarthyite is akin to being called a liar or a fraud. His loudest current admirer is Ann Coulter, a fact, I suspect, that even the senator would have found unsettling.

Yeah, Ann Coulter more dangerous than Joe McCarthy. What a hoot! I’ll bet she’s basking in that mention this morning while eating a few puppies for breakfast.