Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

draa

(975 posts)
Fri Jan 15, 2016, 07:08 PM Jan 2016

According Clinton, in 2008 Obama wasn't electable either...

Bill was trying to do two things with this statement: linking Obama to Jackson in voters' minds and suggesting that Obama can't attract enough white voters to get elected President, so Hillary is the "electable" Democrat. His was seeking to pigeonhole Obama as the "black" candidate -- not only as a matter of pigmentation but also as a matter of voter appeal.

Clinton's campaign operatives were more blatant than the ex-President, shooting out emails comparing Obama and Jackson, noting that in 1988, Jackson won the South Carolina primary with 54% of the vote (to 19% for Al Gore and only 18% for Michael Dukakis, the eventual Democratic nominee).

The Clinton campaign message was transparent: although Obama can win enough black votes to win a few primaries, but he can't prevail in states where whites comprise a huge majority of voters, and certainly isn't as "electable" as Hillary in the November election.



As you can see the "electable" argument is something Clinton has used before. The Democratic Primary in 2008 clearly showed who the "unelectable" candidate was. And, much like this year, it was Hillary Clinton.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/peter-dreier/white-voters-deserve-more_b_83604.html
7 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies

Eric J in MN

(35,619 posts)
1. Bill Clinton's point was that Obama wouldn't necessarily get the nomination.
Fri Jan 15, 2016, 07:12 PM
Jan 2016

It wasn't about who was more electable in the general election.

draa

(975 posts)
2. Which is the same argument being made today.
Fri Jan 15, 2016, 07:16 PM
Jan 2016

Nobody's talking about being "electable" in a primary. That would just be silly.

Warren DeMontague

(80,708 posts)
3. yeah, we heard a lot of that.
Fri Jan 15, 2016, 07:40 PM
Jan 2016

I suspect that he ran a hell of a lot better than she would have, actually, in the general that year.

Ino

(3,366 posts)
4. Hillary in 2008: "He cannot win."
Sat Jan 16, 2016, 12:03 AM
Jan 2016
http://www.nbcnews.com/id/23933035/ns/politics-decision_08/t/richardson-endorsement-still-irks-bill-clinton/
ABC News reported that Hillary Clinton lobbied (Bill) Richardson hard, claiming Obama would lose in the general election. "He cannot win, Bill. He cannot win," she reportedly said.

draa

(975 posts)
5. Hahaha, was she freaking out when she said that.
Sat Jan 16, 2016, 12:18 AM
Jan 2016

Sounds like she was more worried than confident.

Great find by the way. Thanks.

Ino

(3,366 posts)
7. Her actual meaning is kind of up in the air...
Sat Jan 16, 2016, 05:33 AM
Jan 2016

"He can't win," as in "He'll lose the GE." In which case, she was wrong.
OR
"He can't win," as in "It's inconceivable that I'll lose. It's imperative that I win!" In which case, it's the I'm Inevitable Queen-Bee panicking.
And she was wrong

 

Green Forest

(232 posts)
6. Hillary's "electability" is based on name recognition, not an actual record of winning tough races.
Sat Jan 16, 2016, 05:25 AM
Jan 2016

When people get to know Hillary's unlikeable, untrustworthy, lying Rovian self in a tough race, as they did in 2008, she loses. Fast forward to 2016....

Latest Discussions»Retired Forums»2016 Postmortem»According Clinton, in 200...