Zakaria: The Wrong Experience | Newsweek Voices - Fareed Zakaria | Newsweek.com

Fareed Zakaria's analysis of the differences between the two remaining candidates for the Democratic presidential nomination focuses on differences in policy, principle, and political will (most important).:
Zakaria: The Wrong Experience Newsweek Voices - Fareed Zakaria Newsweek.com:

"Obama has advocated easing the Bush-imposed ban on Cuban-Americans visiting the island and sending money to their relatives. He makes a broader case for a new Cuba policy, arguing that capitalism, trade and travel will help break the regime's stranglehold on the country and help open things up.

Clinton immediately disagreed, firmly supporting the current policy. This places her in the strange position of arguing, in effect, that her husband's Cuba policy was not hard-line enough. But this is really not the best way to understand Clinton's position. In all probability, she actually agrees with Obama's stand. She is just calculating that it would anger Cuban-Americans in Florida and New Jersey.

This is the problem with Hillary Clinton. She is highly intelligent, has real experience and is an attractive candidate. But she is terrified to act on her beliefs. In fact, she seems so conditioned by what she sees as political constraints that one can barely tell where her beliefs begin and where those constraints end."

So well said and well supported

Yes we can (video)

"In the unlikely story that is America, there has never been anything false about hope."

Barack Obama for Democratic nominee - Los Angeles Times

The Los Angeles Times has endorsed Barack Obama. As blogger Sam Graham-Felsen points out, this is big, historic even. It's the first endorsement for the Times since 1972!

Barack Obama for Democratic nominee - Los Angeles Times: "experience has value only if it is accompanied by courage and leads to judgment.

Nowhere was that judgment more needed than in 2003, when Congress was called upon to accept or reject the disastrous Iraq invasion. Clinton faced a test and failed, joining the stampede as Congress voted to authorize war. At last week's debate and in previous such sessions, Clinton blamed Bush for abusing the authority she helped to give him, and she has made much of the fact that Obama was not yet in the Senate and didn't face the same test. But Obama was in public life, saw the danger of the invasion and the consequences of occupation, and he said so. He was right."

Dawn in South Carolina

A native Tar Heel's take on the results, reflecting what so many progressive North Carolinians were thinking and talking about yesterday:

Dawn in South Carolina:

"When I was growing up in North Carolina, our neighbor South Carolina played an important role in our lives--giving us something to look down on. We fell for too many racist demagogues through the years (y'all remember Jesse Helms?), but we weren't always run by them. We didn't have no rebel flag flying over our statehouse. We elected a racially moderate governor at the height of the civil-rights backlash in 1960. It was something to say for ourselves, and we appreciated South Carolina's making us look relatively all right.

After Saturday's primary, this Tar Heel can do nothing but offer a big, deep bow to the Democrats of South Carolina. Not because I was particularly rooting for Barack Obama over John Edwards--but because of these fine folks' rejection of the Clintons' gutter politics. The majority of white Democrats, in a state where the Democratic Party was so long the organized mob enforcing Jim Crow, repelled the Clinton campaign's unspeakably vile attempt to paint Barack Obama as some kind of coke-dealing, slumlord-pimping cousin of Al Sharpton--and their equally vile assumption that Deep South whites, whether they're Democratic or Republican, can be manipulated by coded racial divisiveness in 2008 the way they were in 1968. Or, to add a bit more vileness to the mix, their assumption that they could make South Carolina blacks believe that one of their own would be 'unelectable' by definition."

Stunning Facts from Obama's SC Primary Victory

Lots of important data points in last night's historic win....

No Bradley effect in SC.
One big surprise is that Senator Obama managed to increase his share of the White vote significantly over the most recent polls, garnering nearly 25% of that demo rather than the projected 10%, a rare if not unprecedented feat for an African American candidate, especially noteworthy in the "deep south". Second, the senator's share of the white male vote was almost even with Hillary's.

Here are a couple more points, from MSNBC.com:

"COLUMBIA, S.C. - There were two true stunners Saturday night: the size of Sen. Barack Obama’s margin of victory over Sen. Hillary Clinton — 28 percentage points — but just as significantly this number: total turnout for Democrats in their primary was greater than the turnout for the Republican primary in this state, which is one of the most loyally Republican in the nation.

Four years ago about 293,000 Democrats voted in the state’s primary: Saturday Obama alone got more than that number of votes.

Why did Obama win South Carolina and what does this triumph portend for
future contests?
One short answer: He and his campaign staffers
worked."

Big congrats and much respect is due to the South Carolina democratic party for their fairness, hard work, and impeccable organization!