a TPM e-mailer:

Nothing Hillary says can actually browbeat her rivals, so nothing she says now has any direct bearing on whether those delegates are seated or not. As you said, there's little doubt that delegates from FL and MI will be seated in one way or another. If Hillary wins without them, she'll seat them. If Obama wins by an ample margin, he will play generous and seat them. If he wins by a narrow margin, some other process such as caucuses will be ginned up to seat pro-Obama delegations. So why did Hillary raise the question at all?

I speculate that she raised it for one purpose only - to heighten the profile of the Florida Dem primary on Tuesday. Hillary will almost certainly lose SC today . . . She wants the FL win, not the SC loss, to be what resonates through the echo chamber during the week leading up to Super Tuesday.

More....

It's almost a given that Barack Obama will win in South Carolina. How much does the vote matter? The Wall St. Journal reports:

But with expectations set so high, political pundits say the Illinois senator faces a dilemma: He will have to win by a double-digit margin in order for voters nationwide to perceive South Carolina as a real victory.

Up for grabs for S.C. Dems today: 54 delegates, including 45 committed and 9 super delegates.

Two graphics that explain today and Feb. 5, below:

regarding Barack Obama:

Obama is absolutely right that we stand at a time of historic possibility for fundamental change-if anything, he under-estimates how much this is so.

He is also absolutely right that he is the perfect figure to lead us in a new direction. He doesn't have a lot baggage, he is someone that young people can identify with, he is not deeply embedded in a Washington culture that is far removed from the real pulse of the country. But...

Obama is absolutely wrong in his fundamental political analysis. The problem in America today is not a polarized political system in which Democrats and liberals are as equally to blame as Republicans and conservatives. The problem is a political system that's dominated by this sort of brain-dead political narrative. And the longer that Obama promulgates such brain-dead political narratives, the more he squanders his enormous potential. . . .

Read the whole thing. Rosenberg speaks for me on this.

According to the South Carolina newspaper, The State, here are some demographic indicators of how the candidates will do. In addition to turnout, which is expected to be high, particularly since it's good weather today, the paper lists:

• African-American: "Big turnouts in counties like Richland, Charleston and Orangeburg counties could indicate strong support for Obama."

• Women: "Reports of heavy turnout in Greenville or Horry counties could indicate hope for Clinton."

• Youth vote: "Heavy turnout in wards adjacent to Clemson University, USC and Benedict College could point toward votes for Obama."

• Independents: Watch the exit polling. A high turnout of Independents is expected to help Obama and the Democrats.

Here's a larger version of the map. Local News links below:

Obama can take care of himself:

Barack Obama has been fighting and defending himself impressively down in South Carolina and across the board. He isn't some fey mystic who needs to be treated with kid gloves. . . . He's throwing hardballs right along with Hillary Clinton and he's obviously getting some over the plate or this wouldn't be the fight it is.

The punditocracy's "protectiveness" toward Obama is patronizing and insulting. And this silly case of the vapors among the villagers over the "nastiness" of the race and how its going to tear the party apart is nearly guaranteed to make him look like a weak sister, which he isn't, and his elite supporters are falling right into the trap. Watching David Brooks and Mark Shields elbow each other to get to the fainting couch about the unprecedented horror of the South Carolina campaign (which as D-Day pointed out in the post below is a complete joke) is not helpful to Obama or Clinton.

(Emphasis supplied.)

Watching MSNBC this morning, I see that the notion that white voters are moving away from Obama is taking flight. This is not supported by a review of the polling. Barack Obama NEVER had the white vote in South Carolina. In an update in my previous post, I wrote:

Speaking for me only

When Barack Obama wins South Carolina tonight, the question of race is going to be discussed by the Media ad nauseum. Credit to Craig Crawford on MSNBC who this morning said, what did the Clintons do to "inject race" in this campaign? Can anyone point to ANYTHING they said that "injected race?" The Media "injected race." As Crawford noted, it was the Media that decided to irresponsibly discuss the "Bradley Effect" to explain its grievous coverage of New Hampshire. So it really was Andrew Kohut of Pew Research who "injected race" in this campaign.

But let's be honest, no one has to "inject race" in our country. And it is silly to act shocked that race is an issue in politics.

More . . .

TPM has a followup to the No Way post I criticize here. Now Josh says:

There's little real doubt that Michigan and Florida delegates will actually be seated at this summer's convention. . . . Certainly it would be foolish not to have representation from two pivotal swing states.

The question of course is what if we have a divided convention, or one where the votes of Michigan and Florida prove key to the result? . . . That's what Hillary's trying to do here, lay the groundwork for seating those delegates . . . I see no way that that's not trying to change the rules midway.

Again, those pesky facts get in the way. If Hillary does that, it will be in accordance with the RULE that states that the Convention delegates CAN do this. When the DNC made its ruling, it allowed for these delegates to be seated by a simple majority of the convention delegates. Any one who took the time to think about this, as say, Jerome Armstrong and Markos Moulitsas did at the time, KNEW this and SAID this. Sorry, but it is Josh who is arguing for changing the rules now. Let's face it, this entire set up by the DNC has been a disaster. A lot of folks who were paying attention then said so. And they were right. But rules are rules, right?

Speaking for me only.

If this is true, then the Clintons are promising more of the same triangulation of the 1990s:

"[Hillary] and John McCain are very close. They always laugh that if they wind up being the nominees of their parties, it would be the most civilized election in American history and probably put the voters to sleep," Bill Clinton said.

Excuse me Mr. President, but if that is the case, I see no reason not to nominate the unity schtick candidate who can actually get good press for his unity schtick.

If Hillary is not going to fight for Dem values against a John McCain candidacy, then what is the logic of nominating her?

After railing against Hillary Clinton for her UNENFORCEABLE call to seat the Florida and Michigan delegations (Josh Marshall calls it an attempt to "muscle" the Party, what muscle is not at all clear) and lambasting Clinton for not taking her name off the ballot in Michigan and Florida, Marshall asks:

Perhaps there's some detail of this question that I'm not aware of. And if there is I'll revise my opinion accordingly. But based on what I know now this is pretty clear-cut.

What Josh knows is pretty clearly wrong. First thing Josh seems NOT to know is that taking their name off the ballots was NOT required of the candidates by the Democratic Party. If it was, then Clinton AND Obama AND Edwards are violating the rules as they ALL have their names on the ballot. But of course the rules can not require this for to take their names off the Florida ballot they have to drop out of the race entirely under Florida law. So much for that "rule." More . . .

From the Obama camp, via Nico Pitney:

"The Clintons have always put people in a box - they look at everything through racial lines, gender lines, geographic lines; they tend to segment people," said Steve Hildebrand, a senior Obama adviser who spearheaded his Iowa effort. "She goes to Nevada and sits with Latinos in their living room to court their vote - that's not the way Barack approaches people. . . .

(Emphasis mine.) Say what? Now a candidate can not sit in a Latino's home? WTF? Of course, it turns out Obama does in fact do the same thing, as Pitney demonstrates, but what in blazes is Hildebrand talking about?

then he is indisputably Obama's issue. Via Turkana, Rezko's donor list, lots to Obama and other Dems, none to Clinton. Of course, Obama's real estate deal with Rezko is the point that is his biggest vulnerability.

But let me say it again, it should NOT be an issue. But when the Media and some Left blogs act as if a photo with Rezko is an issue, then fairness dictates that Rezko must be a BIG issue for Obama. Rezko's donations to Obama the last few years here: