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.