What South Carolina Voters Really Told Us.

While self important and frequently clueless mainstream political pundits wrestle with each other to divine deeper meaning from the South Carolina Presidential Primary results, through twisted logic and biased lenses, they often miss the obvious. The voters came out in droves, a fact which alone tells us that there is strong sentiment toward more public involvement and voter responsibility for what form the leadership of this country takes. Their numbers include a very low turnout among Republican voters, indicating a deep sense of despair or disillusionment with current Republican “leadership.” One does not need to dig too deep or ponder long to reach these patent conclusions.

Another thing that the South Carolina results tell us is that there is a serious risk and an exposed underbelly to the Clinton campaign or any campaign that wants to hodwink voters. The Democratic voters were sophisticated enough to recognize that Hillary Clinton had all but written off the state two months ago, sending Former President Clinton in to try to salvage the situation with often highhanded and ill-considered negative tactics that obviously backfired. Despite superficial and dishonest reassurances by Hillary and her campaign spokesmen to the contrary, she effectively conceded the state by choosing to campaign elsewhere and reduce outreach expenditures. That strategy may have been prudent in light of a "national" campaign, but the falsehood of the reassurances was not wise when the people in South Carolina could obviously see that they were untrue.

In addition, the public comments by both Clinton candidates exposed a veneer of "racial brotherhood" and the underlying racial insensitivity that lies beneath (or at least a willingness to appeal to voters of such persuasion). These actions undercut the political capital of Bill Clinton's popularity among Black voters that he sought to use in support of his wife's candidacy. Bill Clinton demeaned potential Black voters by telling them that they need not be “afraid” to vote for his wife, as if these voters were too unsophisticated to recognize their own self interest and lacked the courage to vote their convictions. The Clinton campaign’s raising the issue of “civil rights” credibility was another stupid blunder. There is no question that all Democratic candidates have done more to honor the legacy of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. than any of the apparent Republican contestants in the Presidential sweepstakes. Why then was the issue raised if not to subtly persuade white voters and dissuade Black voters by appearing to discredit the sincerity and commitment of Obama and playing the race card?

Another obvious lesson taught by the South Carolina Primary was that sleeping dogs should usually be left lying in peace. Everyone was aware that the presence of Bill Clinton was lurking in the background of the Hillary Clinton candidacy. As long as Bill Clinton kept a low profile and declined any type of attack strategy, he could be viewed as a positive asset to bolster the largely false claims of “experience” touted by Hillary Clinton’s campaign. While she personally lacks those qualifications, her ability to draw upon her husband’s experiences could be seen as an advantage. In addition, staying on the high road would have made Hillary Clinton more appealing to the left and moderate voters who are tired of the pall of negativism and pessimism cast by the Republican President and his administration. Voters are eager to have hope again, and the cutthroat approach recently adopted by the Clinton candidates works against that positive image. Moreover, the Clinton strategy was sloppy. They attacked Obama for supposed links to a Chicago "slumlord"while failing to check to see if there were any demonstrable links between that disparaged figure and the Clintons. It turns out such evidence surfaced, requiring Hillary to explain away the connection.

Obama’s campaign has not been fully successful in staying out of the muck and mire, but has appeared to try to do so. This is more admirable during the Primaries and before facing the inevitable mudslinging that will ensue in a battle with a Republican candidate. In responding to the Bill Clinton attacks, however, Obama exposed another serious weakness in the Hillary Clinton campaign. The fantasy that Bill Clinton could accept a role of elder statesman and advisor, if Hillary were elected, has been shattered. Obama’s questioning of which person he is actually running against highlighted the issue of the “co-Presidency.” While many fans and supporters of Bill Clinton in the democratic ranks are eager for his return to the White House, there are also many voters who have not let go of the facts of his poor judgment in the Monica Lewinsky matter and the impeachment proceedings.

George W. Bush has chosen to exclude his Ex-President father from Presidential adviser status during his tenure, when the advice of the elder would have been very beneficial in light of the ineptitude, incompetence and egotistical stubbornness of the son. Hillary has invited her Ex-president husband to be active in that circle when she apparently does not to need to do so. Her decision to deploy Bill Clinton in that role suggests two things. First, it suggests that her candidacy is a “back-door” way to return Bill Clinton to the Presidency when he could not get there legally. Second, there is a hint of the notion that Hillary lacks, or fears that she lacks, the mettle to handle the Presidency on her own. Supporters and those taking a close look at Hillary Clinton would eschew that notion. However, her detractors and those playing the gender card would quickly attempt to capitalize on this impression.

So the South Carolina voters have told us that all campaigns need to think more carefully about superficial attempts to sway voters with insincere messages that appeal to the baser instincts and the lower intelligences. They have demanded that any candidate seeking their support do so honestly and sincerely. They have declared that the coming election of a new President is an important matter, and one that they take seriously enough to mobilize and express their opinions at the ballot box. All candidates should take heed of these obvious messages. The voters in the upcoming primaries are doubtless no less sophisticated, motivated and upset with the current way things are done in Washington.

The Land of McCain and The Able

A recent news report extensively documents the impact of the new immigration law in Arizona that went into effect on January 1, 2008. That law imposes strict sanctions upon illegal alien workers and also imposes severe sanctions upon business that employ such workers, including the loss of business license or being shut down. The analysis of whether the effects from enacting the new law are the unintended consequences of poorly conceived legislation or the calculated result of a thinly veiled racist measure will undoubtedly come in the future. However, those results are real and serious in the here and now. What seems clear is that anyone seeking an environment of brotherhood, ethnic tolerance and conciliation had better steer wide of the home state of presidential candidate John McCain.

The impact of the new law is being felt on many levels. Hispanic employees are leaving the state in droves to return to their country of origin or to other states without such draconian laws. The exodus has been dubbed “Hispanic Panic.” Companies are being forced to raise wages to try to attract a small and shrinking pool of talented and prized workers. Hispanic workers who are in the United States legally, but who may have spouses or other relatives without legal status are leaving the state because of the fear of direct or indirect deportation consequences.

According to an immigration rights activist in Phoenix: "The fear is not only at the worker level, it's at the employer level. I've never seen that before in my life." He also predicted that the skilled Hispanic workers who stay will be laid off and paid in cash in a growing black market or underground economy. the fear factor can be seen in the example of the crew chief for a landscape firm who has legal status, but whose wife does not. He is packing up his family and leaving, including three children who were born in the US and have legal status.

The president of a construction company expressed regret at laying off ten Hispanic employees, some of whom were his best employees. But he said he could not risk losing his license. Even a suspension during an investigation during a competitive bidding process could cripple the company economically, regardless of the ultimate investigation results. Such companies report searching hard for replacement workers among American vets and ex-convicts seeking to re-enter the labor market. While hiring unskilled vets may have economic and political appeal and hiring ex-convicts more dubious merit, in either case the companies lose by having to replace skilled and reliable workers with less skilled and unproven workers. Businesses are also fearful of exposure to attacks from competitors who might seek economic advantage by reporting alleged violations of the law in order to disrupt their operations.

The effects of this environment of fear are widespread. Real estate agents report calls for advice from homeowners who want to know what to do with their homes as a result of lost jobs and income or simply because of the perceived need to flee a hostile state. These families are calculating the risks and the costs of simply abandoning their homes and departing, allowing the homes to fall into foreclosure and worsening that aspect of the state economy.

In some heavily Hispanic areas of Phoenix, three of four students have left the school and school attendance overall has dropped, despite assurances that officials will not be allowed into the schools to seize them. Thus it is clear that the atmosphere of fear has permeated all age groups from adults to school children.

In the wake of the George W. Bush administration’s cultivated climate of fear, based primarily upon falsehoods and appeals ethnically and religiously based prejudices, the question whether John McCain and the “Arizona model” is something that this country can afford or indeed can survive. Whatever his current rhetoric may be out on the presidential campaign trail, it should be noted that he does not seem to be aggressively and publicly attacking this unfortunate and misguided legislation. Even those in Arizona who affirm that some change was needed to address the illegal immigration issue reject this law that seems only designed to damage the business and economic interests of the state. Aside from the economic impact from the exodus of skilled workers to Nevada and other nearby states, the law squarely places Arizona in the limelight as a bastion of racial purity protectors or malicious bigots.

Quite obviously, if the purported reason for the measure, to protect “American” jobs were valid, there would be a wave of qualified candidates in Arizona or from other states lining up to take the place of the Hispanic workers fleeing Arizona's hostile ethnic environment. But the business owners report that this clearly is not the case, as they cry out for skilled workers to do the available work. This seems yet another example of unfounded fears and racial prejudices being inflamed by politicians. As we look forward then, inquiring minds should be asking what type of leadership can be expected from Arizona Senator John McCain, should his quest for the White House be successful. Does America really want or need a continuation of a policy and mindset that, unlike Philadelphia's motto (The City of “Brotherly Love”) will brand the United States as the land of “brotherly jealousy, suspicion and hatred?”