Why was Bill Clinton's comment on Jesse Jackson wrong?Where is the insult?

[saracat]

What am I missing? He said Jesse carried SC and ran a great campaign and He said Obama has run a great campaign.Then he said Obama has run a strong and great campaign "everywhere"'. What is "insulting" about that?

It seems some think the Jackson comparison is insulting.Why would that be insulting? He only mentioned Jackson's win.Is it because Jesse was the first black candidate to win? What is wrong? How is the statement bigoted? it is at least factual and seemed complimentary to me! :shrug:

I guess I should apologize in advance for liking Jesse Jackson.

[babylonsister]

1. Because Bill insinuated race into it, again, when that wasn't the question. nt

[kennetha]

What an idiotic comment.

Let's see, over half of the voters in SC were African Americans. 85% of them voted for Obama. That makes for a quite peculiar electorate -- an electorate that enabled an African American candidate to win two previous primaries in SC. Noting that plain and simple fact is "injecting race?"

You make it sound like Bill Clinton is George Bush the first playing the race card against Michael Du-cockeyed. Gimme a break!

[AX10]

11. Correct.

[TeamJordan23]

14. So answer, was there anything in the question about race? nm

[babylonsister]

17. You haven't been paying attention. Many people have noticed this,

including Clyburn, Kennedy, Kerry, Leahy, etc. Who's the idiot now? Bone up!

[Kittycat]

22. Not Bush - but Rove, yes.

[Kittycat]

2. Why Jackson? Why not say Edwards won in 2004?

You know exactly what he was doing.

[saracat]

8. Because Edwards didn't win this time and Obama did???

And race has been in the picture since Obama announced.Obamma himself uses it.This was about a Black candidaate, our first viable Black candidate winning SC. But he is the second Black candidate to do so.This race was watched for the Black vote, as it is a Black majority state. Pundits also watched the Catholic vote when Kennedy ran and they are watching the women's vote with Hillary .Big deal.

[Kittycat]

19. So he was race baiting, when no one was even asking such a question.

[babylonsister]

No. Bill was making a "point" and it was duly noticed by a lot of people. nt

[MADem]

28. Did Edwards blow out a caucus before he won SC? Jackson did.

See post 27.

[Kittycat]

29. You know it was race baiting. Why are you even making excuses.

It would be better to just ignore it, and continue supporting your candidate on their issues, than to make excuses for crap like this.

[MADem]

35. I am not making excuses. You are telling me that you don't know your recent history

AND you don't really give a shit to learn it. Way to be intellectually rigorous, there "kitty cat."

Jesse Jackson led the delegate count and was the front runner in the early stages of the 88 campaign. I remember it very well. Dukakis didn't move in and take over until later, when he took Wisconsin.


Go do some homework, and stop falsely inferring that people are racists.

[Kittycat]

97. It has nothing to do with homework. It was a comment meant to play the race card

and to be divisive.

Typical Clinton politic scum.

[DJ13]

3. In chosing to highlight the wins by the only other Black to win SC, he was implying ....

....that it was due to Obama's race.

He could have used any other past SC winner in claiming it was a great campaign Obama ran, but he thought race should be the issue in his comment.

Got it?

[tammywammy]

6. Good post

That's exactly it.

[water]

4. In my eyes, here is what he was doing:

Jackson is viewed as a black candidate who made race the center of his campaign (not the best for building a large coalition of voters). Obama appears (though I suppose his campaign could be tricking everyone) to be running a race-neutral campaign, something that is certainly helping him.

By trying to equate Obama with Jackson, he is essentially saying "eh, blacks always vote for Democrats, and will always vote for a black candidate, this state didn't matter".

He might be right, but he's definitely trying to inject race into the campaign.

[ErnestoG]

5. Insinuation is a delicate art, saracat.

But when its done well it is very hard to attack. Clinton is a master at it. He is the consumate politician and his grasp of it is amazing.

He brought race into the debate while looking like he was praising Jesse and Obama. It was a comment that had the similar flavor of someone arguing "well, your friends over in the Nazi Party said...". Not overtly contentious but very sneaky and incendiary. Trust me, Bill knew EXACTLY what he was doing.

[babylonsister]

24. And Bill isn't the only consummate politician, because other people

picked up on his tactics. He was busted for doing it.

[Tulkas]

7. Because Jesse Jackson never had a chance to win, due to his race and......

the attitude of the country at the time. The translation is "Barack Obama is just another black man who can't win".

I like Rev. Jackson too. Using his name like this is an insult to him also. Bill needs to Shut The F___ Up !!!

[kennetha]

12. Wow!

To take that from what Bill Clinton actually said is really to play the race card. This is what Obama supporters do. They cry "race card" at every turn, based on next to nothing. In so doing the play the race card by accusing the other guy of playing the race card. Pretty neat trick. And the suck-up media for some reason let's them get away with it.

[ErnestoG]

20. "This is what Obama supporters do..."

Stereotype much?

[Tulkas]

41. We tell the truth

Any objective observer agrees with my assesment of his comment.

[Tulkas]

37. yes WOW

That is what Bill Clinton Did.. deal with it.


are you so ignorant that you can't see it or are you just being dishonest to cover for your candidate?


The media (MSNBC) has described this comment as "Bill Clinton has put down the blunt instrument and picked up a chainsaw"

[MADem]

30. No, you are misremembering. For a short time, Jackson led the delegate count.

He crushed his opponents in Michigan--CRUSHED them. And that was a caucus, like Iowa.

Then he went on to the state of his birth, South Carolina, and CRUSHED them again.

Sound familiar?

Jeez, it wasn't all THAT long ago....no one remembers history!

[Tulkas]

44. Caucuses he did well

But when the vote was private people did not vote for the black man.

[MADem]

70. He won a dozen contests. He came in SECOND.

He was absolutely bullshit that the Duke picked Lloyd Bentsen for VP. He felt he'd earned it, and many agreed with him. Lloyd was chosen to give MD 'gravitas' because he had an insufficient national profile at the time.

[geiger]

99. right you are; and the Clintons have jumped the shark on this one.

[aquart]

9. The insult is noticing Obama is vaguely the same color as Jackson.

Which means he's black. Which means you're a racist. Because you even brought it up.

And I know in my heart that over 80 percent of the black Americans of South Carolina absolutely would have voted for that fine man Barack Obama no matter what color he was. Because they know quality when they see it.

Which makes Bill Clinton a racist because he thinks they came out for that fabulous and extraordinary man because his daddy came from Kenya.

Which is racist and demeaning, of course. Get it now?

[water]

13. No, you can't call someone racist for bringing up race!

"Racist" is so overused now that it's at risk for losing its meaning.

[Kittycat]

25. Correct... However.

I consider race baiting, lower than being racist. Playing that comment, plants a seed - that even in the non-racist mind, might detour a voter for fear that the voter's choice is unwinnable based on color. So why put a vote toward a candidate that has no chance of winning?

Their win at all costs campaign is repugnant.

ETA: Not to mention the obvious... Bringing out the anti-aa vote.

[cali]

15. How pathetic and disingenuous

Bill and the the rest of Hillary's campaign is trying to marginalize Barack by portraying him as "too black". Answering Jesse Jackson to a question about Barack's claim that he was campaigning against both of them, was a ridiculous non sequitor, and completely obvious- as was the memo released by Hillary's campaign after the election.

[moriah]

36. Memo Released by Hillary's Campaign?

Are you talking about this?

http://www.hillaryclinton.com/news/release/view/?id=5520

If so, I would REALLY like to see where you get "ridiculous non-sequitor" and "completely obvious" -- because uh, I don't get it.

If there's a different memo, could you link to it? Thanks!

[saracat]

18. How ridiculous! Are we not supposed to "notice" Barack is black?

What, is it a secret? Maybe we shouldn't notice Hillary is a woman, or John is a white male? They have been dissecting the women's vote and the white vote, why is the black vote any different? Was it demeaning to notice Dukakis was Greek? Was it demeaning that they analyzed the Catholic vote when Kennedy ran? BTW, they analyzed the Catholic vote when Kerry ran too and no one squawked!They Talk about Geraldine Ferraro in comparison to Hillary all the time, though she only ran for VP.Is that sexist to mention another woman?

[babylonsister]

26. Nothin for nothin, but some numbnuts did squawk about Kerry and

religion, claiming he should be disavowed by the church. That's all I took in, I couldn't take no more!

[John Q. Citizen]

53. If you are insinuating that Bill is too stupid to realize what he was saying, well,

maybe that's true. But I doubt it.

I wonder why Bill didn't chose Hill as his running mate in 1992?

Didn't he have confidence in her abilities to do the job back then? Or perhaps he didn't have confidence she would be a good campaigner?

Or did he think he couldn't win with a woman on the ticket?

Any ideas on this?

By the way, in the interests of disclosure, are you supporting Hillary this time around? (that's rhetorical, it's more than obvious you are)

[Leopolds Ghost]

93. Was it demeaning to notice Dukakis was Greek?

Uh, yeah. You can extrapolate from there.

[Tatiana]

21. He didn't just "notice" Obama was vaguely the same color as Jackson.

He made it a point and he made it a point for a reason. He knows white southerners can't stand Jackson so he tried to make the comparison in preparation for upcoming primary contests. He's hoping white male southerners will see Obama and think "he's like Jesse Jackson, that damn race-baiter."

It was a (perhaps successful) strategy that was beneath him. THAT'S why people got upset.

[LeftCoast]

92. Is there room in Bill Clinton's head for the two of you?

You seem to 'know' a lot of things that are only knowable from the inside of Bill's skull.

[cali]

10. it has nothing to do with liking Jesse

it has everything to do with trying to marginalize Barack by portraying him as "too black". Hard to miss what the Clintons have been doing. Frank Rich, Michael Crowley, Bob Herbert and many other lefty journos have explained in detail why it's so wrong.

[grantcart]

16. it was patronizing because

Jackson's campaign was a symbolic campaign aimed at raising the issue that democratic party had taken for granted the interests of the black community

Obama's campaign is to lead the party and he has gone way out of his way to clearly state that african americans should only support him if they agree with his candidancy and not for symbolic reasons.

Clinton was responding to a question why does it take two clintons to run against a single Obama and the meaning of his answer was that they had to work twice as hard because the african american community in SC was voting as sheep and not as individuals.

[FrenchieCat]

23. Because Jesse Jackson's home state was South Carolina......

plus no one asked Clinton about a "Black" candidate winning
or not, or anything about that.

Bubba: Obama Is Just Like Jesse Jackson
January 26, 2008 8:18 PM

Said Bill Clinton today in Columbia, SC: "Jesse Jackson won South Carolina in '84 and '88. Jackson ran a good campaign. And Obama ran a good campaign here."

This was in response to a question from ABC News' David Wright about it taking "two Clintons to beat" Obama. Jackson had not been mentioned.

Boy, I can't understand why anyone would think the Clintons are running a race-baiting campaign to paint Obama as "the black candidate."
http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2008/01/bubba-obama-is.html

The only parallels between Jackson and Barack is that they are both Black, and both won SC.

But everyone already knew that both Jackson and Barack are both black, and that both won SC.

So what was the point to Clinton's comment? Why did he make it? Why was it something he felt important to point out without being asked? :shrug:

[MADem]

32. No--both won CAUCUSES before they took SC. And Jackson led in the

delegate count in 88 and was the front runner for a time.

[Egnever]

42. sorry but jackson did not lead the delegater count in 88 when SC came around

It's hard to get a complete picture of the state of the 1984 and 1988 campaigns without a closer examination. But what these articles make clear is that unlike this year South Carolina was only lightly or moderately contested by the frontrunning candidates. And certainly in 1984 and to a large degree in 1988, the nomination contest was already decided, which contributed significantly to Jackson's wins. What's more, caucuses are much easier to win with legwork and organization than primaries if your competitors are not making a big effort in the state.

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/064892.php

[MADem]

58. Jackson came in SECOND overall. He won five primaries on Super Tuesday.

Same as AL GORE. This guy is slopping incomplete data at you and you're buying it.

The reason no one bothered with SC is because it ALWAYS goes GOP in the General. Better to sell your product in states where you think you can win in the general, especiallly if you're short on cash.

I don't aver that Jackson KEPT that lead, but he had it EARLY in the contest, AND he won a major caucus in a blowout AND SC.

Jackson was NOT a contender in eighty four, but he WAS in eighty eight. He believed, and many agreed with him, that he had earned second spot on the ticket...because he came in SECOND.

If Al Gore had miraculously 'come to Jesus' and thrown his support to Jackson, the thing wouldn't have been 'all sewn up.' Of course, that was unlikely to happen, because Gore was running interference for Dukakis. But had he gone a different way, we could have ended up with President Jackson, or VP Jackson had Gore intervened on Jackson's behalf for that reward.

[FrenchieCat]

43. But since South Carolina is not Barack's home state........

There is not comparison.
:shrug:

[MADem]

59. It didn't hurt that Jesse was born there, but Jesse was coming out of Chicago.

Same as Obama.

[FrenchieCat]

78. Jesse Jackson was a Senator from Illinois? I didn't know that!

:eyes:

[MADem]

86. No, he was running RAINBOW PUSH out of Chicago. He CAME out of IL.

Do read for comprehension, and cut with the :eyes: when you don't even bother to be sure of what you DIDN'T read.

[MADem]

27. They had similar wins, IIRC... THAT is the point that seems to go missing.

Didn't Jackson in 88 totally blow out the MI caucuses (got more than half the total) by working the autoworker's issues and other union concerns really hard, and then follow up with a strong SC win? He was "the man to beat" for a short while, there, and was leading in the delegate count. SNL was having a blast with him as a candidate--they did a debate sketch that was an absolute SCREAM (Lovitz played Dukakis).

I think Clinton was looking at the full Jackson campaign and drawing an entirely valid (caucus blowout-strong primary win) analogy, but the MSM helped the race "theme" along. Because that's where they WANTED to go. They ignored the NUANCE because it didn't suit their storyline and their desire to "pile on." Sure, both candidates were not of the caucasian persuasion, but there were other VERY similar data points beside that.

I also think, if he was "implying" anything, it was that Jackson started incredibly strong, was the frontrunner for awhile, won a few primaries, and ran out of gas after that. Seeing as Clinton's backing another horse, that's a valid approach to take if he wants to do any "comparing." He's hoping Obama flames out the same way so his candidate can surge forward, hopefully not winding up like Mike Dukakis...

[Egnever]

31. You and Clinton both got it wrong.

TPM Reader JZ wrote in last night to point out that in 1984 and 1988, the nominations were pretty much sewn up by Walter Mondale and Michael Dukakis by the time South Carolina's caucuses

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/064892.php

[MADem]

54. Uh, he is WRONG. Jackson had no 'mo' in 84 at all ... but he DID in 88

He had the most delegates early in the contest. He took Michigan with fifty five percent.

He took SC, too. And it wasn't all over after Super Tuesday. Not from a DELEGATE standpoint at ALL. For a short period of time, Jackson WAS the front runner. He cleaned EVERYONE's clock in Michigan.

In the Super Tuesday races, Dukakis won six primaries, Gore five, Jackson five and Gephardt one, with Gore and Jackson splitting the Southern states.....Jesse Jackson's campaign believed, that since they had come a respectable second, they were entitled to the vice presidential spot. Dukakis refused, and gave the spot to Lloyd Bentsen.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._presidential_election,_1988

Back in 88, the one accused of doing the "race baiter" thing was none other than AL GORE. He was battling for second with Jackson, but then he flamed out and dropped out. Jackson won twelve or thirteen contests. The deal wasn't done as that poster suggests. If Gore had decided to throw his support to Jackson, which was quite unlikely, the outcome might have been completely different.

[FrenchieCat]

34. South Carolina was Jesse's home state.

SO his win was more guaranteed
AND it wasn't as large....
AND he only garnet like 5% of the White Vote.....
AND he hadn't been accused of not being Black Enough.....
AND Jesse Jackson's win was 20 years ago.
AND Jesse Jackson was not a sitting Senator.
AND the turnout was not twice the size it had been previously
AND Voters of all demographics didn't break to Jackson
AND Jesse Jackson has endorsed Barack Obama, but he did not campaign for him in South Carolina.
AND no one asked Clinton about any of this.

In reality, the parallels between the 2 men are scant.
#1. Both Jesse Jackson and OBama are Black
#2. Both Won South Carolina primary

So, since we knew both of the 2 parallels without being told,
why did Clinton feel compel to remind us of Jesse Jackson?



Think about it.

[MADem]

65. It was NOT his "home state"--it was his "birth state." He was living in Illinois--like Obama.

I'll bet Obama does very well in Hawaii, too. That's not his "home state" anymore.

You forgot, in listing your parallels, and in addition to your two:

Both men came out of IL with their Presidential bids.

Both men won major caucuses (Obama/IA, Jackson/MI) early in the contests.

Jackson clearly led in delegates at the outset, Obama claims to as well.

Both ran charismatic, almost "evangelical" campaigns, with many very large "revival style" campaign appearances.

Both captivated the press right out of the gate and received a LOT of 'cost free' favorable media.

Jesse Jackson finished SECOND in 88. Not fifth, not fourth, not third. SECOND.

Think about THAT.

[Lucinda]

45. From wiki

"...Four years later, in 1988, Jackson once again offered himself as a candidate for the Democratic Party presidential nomination. This time, his successes in the past made him a more credible candidate, and he was both better financed and better organized. Although most people did not seem to believe he had a serious chance at winning, Jackson once again exceeded expectations as he more than doubled his previous results, prompting R.W. Apple of the New York Times to call 1988 "the Year of Jackson". <14>

He captured 6.9 million votes and won 11 contests; seven primaries (Alabama, the District of Columbia, Georgia, Louisiana, Mississippi, Puerto Rico and Virginia) and four caucuses (Delaware, Michigan, South Carolina and Vermont).<15>. Jackson also scored March victories in Alaska's caucuses and Texas's local conventions, despite losing the Texas primary.<1> <2> Some news accounts credit him with 13 wins. <3> Briefly, after he won 55% of the vote in the Michigan Democratic caucus, he was considered the frontrunner for the nomination, as he surpassed all the other candidates in total number of pledged delegates.

In early 1988, Jackson organized a rally at the former American Motors assembly plant in Kenosha, Wisconsin, approximately two weeks after new owner Chrysler announced it would close the plant by the end of the year. In his speech, Jackson spoke out against Chrysler's decision, stating "We have to put the focus on Kenosha, Wisconsin, as the place, here and now, where we draw the line to end economic violence!" and compared the workers' fight to that of the civil rights movement in Selma, Alabama. As a result, the UAW Local 72 union voted to endorse his candidacy, even against the rules of the UAW. (Dudley 1994) However, Jackson's campaign suffered a significant setback less than two weeks later when he was defeated handily in the Wisconsin primary by Michael Dukakis. Jackson's showing among white voters in Wisconsin was significantly higher than in his 1984 run, but was also noticeably lower than pre-primary polling had indicated it would be. The discrepancy has been cited as an example of the so-called "Bradley effect".<16>..."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jesse_Jackson

[FrenchieCat]

50. And so.....?

What does this have to do with Barack Obama? :shrug:

[Lucinda]

63. Obama currenly has the lead in delegates. As did Jackson for a time in 88.

Clinton was doing what all campaigns do...putting it out there that it isn't over till its over. Jackson was a relevant example. He was saying that SC wins and delegate leadership doesn't always equal the nomination.

[MADem]

67. There is a valid comparison--it is almost as though Jackson paved the way.

People don't seem to appreciate that, had Jackson had Gore in his corner, instead of having Gore working at cross-purposes to him, there might have been a very different outcome to that contest.

[FrenchieCat]

76. It is not a valid comparison, unless one wants to compare two Black men

who both ran for President, 20 years apart.

The rest is bullshit and you know it.

[MADem]

88. The rest is not bullshit, and no, I don't know it. What I do know is that you are bound and

determined to infer that anyone who doesn't agree with you or share your worldview is a racist. You also prefer to skim the surface and not engage in in-depth analysis.

See, just because YOU say so, doesn't make it fact.

It's your opinion, and we know what those are like--everyone's got one.

You take your righteous 'bullshit' and toddle along now. You are being obstreperous and we've nothing more to discuss.

[Lucinda]

77. There may be another candidate with a large percentage of the SC black voter who ALSO had

delegate leads, that could have been used as an example, but I'm not sure who it would be.

The wiki article was fascinating reading. It seems that I've been aware of Jackson my whole life, but I had no idea how that election played out.

[MADem]

85. It did get press and comedy coverage, too--SNL had a field day with that contest. It was a big deal

And all of the candidates were target-rich. They did the debates, with Lovitz playing Dukakis (and having a boosting 'elevator' behind the podium to lift him up--when he said "I can't believe I'm LOSING to this guy" when debating Bush, it was just hysterical).

In the primaries, they had several people playing Jesse Jackson and of course they did the characteristic rhyme--to include using "nuclear freeze" and "welfare cheese" in the same sentence. There was some brilliant humor back then. Who knows what fun we'd be having if only those writers weren't on strike? I'm sure the candidates are thrilled about that...!

[Lucinda]

87. The Lovitz line sounds familiar. I probably saw it in a clip show.

Too funny! I have a vague recollection about lots of stand-ups taking shots at Dukakis and the tank too.

[Knox Harrington]

33. Do you honestly think

that the thought of race even entered Bill Clinton's mind when he compared Obama to Jackson?? Of course it didn't. Bill Clinton made the comparison simply because Obama and Jackson pulled similar numbers in winning the state. It was a numbers analysis, plain and simple. I bet if Jerry Brown, for example, won South Carolina, Bill would have been just as likely to use him as a comparison. Jeez, Bill Clinton brings up the name of a black person and all of a sudden is accused of playing "the race card."

Don't you people know that Bill Clinton likes black people?? Get with the program!

Just one more reason I'm supporting Hillary and Bill in '08. They're good, honest people.

[ShortnFiery]

91. Why shut my mouth! Of course not ...

:eyes:

[Tatiana]

38. There was no logical reason for him to bring up Jesse Jackson.

He brought it up to make the association of Obama with Jesse Jackson in the minds of white southern voters, who can't stand Jackson.

It was a tactic that was beneath him and caused unnecessary damage to Hillary's campaign.

[Meldread]

39. Come on, really, are you serious?

I am going to give you the benefit of the doubt, just because I want to be fair, but it was plain as day what he was doing.

Here is some background about me: I'm a 25 year old white male from the South. Being gay, I suppose, has helped me tune into certain 'codes' people use - little phrases like "gay lifestyle" - to imply that being gay is a choice, a way of life, etc.

As a white male, even though I respect Jesse, and we disagree highly over the issue of gay marriage, I could never vote for him. Why? Because as a white man I never saw him as anything more than a black candidate. He wasn't in the race to win, he was in the race the same reason Dennis was in the race and the same reason John Edwards remains in the race - to bring up important issues. To give voice to those who have no voice.

In Jesse's case, he was giving voice to the Black Community who he felt (rightfully) have been taken for granted by the Democratic Party. No one expected him to win the nomination, let alone the Presidency. He was just the black guy giving a voice to black issues.

Bill Clinton gave his comments for two reasons:
1. To once again try and paint Obama as just the "black candidate" - like Jesse Jackson.
2. To marginalize his victory, in essence saying, "Oh, it was just a bunch of black folks voting - this is nothing. Wait till we go to a real state with less of them."

That is what I saw and heard. Bill Clinton could have easily just have said: "I am proud of how well we've done. We knew it would be a hard fight coming in here. Obama was a clear favorite - everyone knew that. We did come in a good second place though, far above John Edwards, a favored son of South Carolina. He won here last time, but he didn't go on to get the nomination, so Obama shouldn't get too secure in his victory. I know we'll do better in the Super Tuesdays states and pass him in delegates. So I'm not worried."

He could have said that, or something like that. No one would have complained or saw it as race baiting. Bill Clinton is not a stupid man. He knew exactly what he was saying and doing.

[babylonsister]

46. Thank you so much for this, Meldread. For a lot of reasons. But

Bill did use the race card, and you clarified that.

[Tatiana]

47. Great post; I wish I could recommend this.

Though some are doing an admirable job trying, there is no way to explain away or excuse Bill's comments. Personally, I think he wanted this exact type of inflammatory publicity. Southerners will be thinking about Obama and associating Obama with Jackson, who is not popular at all with white southerners.

[MonkeyFunk]

40. There was no insult whatsoever

people just like to find offense where there is none.

[Lucinda]

48. And there are similarities

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=4243096&mesg_id=4243343

[FrenchieCat]

51. I don't see the similarities......

1988 primaries-
In the Iowa caucuses, Gephardt finished first, Simon finished second, and Dukakis finished third. In the New Hampshire primary, Dukakis finished first, Gephardt finished second, and Simon finished third. Dukakis and Gore campaigned hard against Gephardt with negative ads, and eventually the United Auto Workers retracted their endorsement of Gephardt, who was heavily dependent on labor union backing.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic_Party_(United_States)_presidential_primaries,_1988

Did Jackson win Iowa by 8 pts? NO
Did Jackson place 2nd only behind by 2.5 pts? NO

Next Contest was Super Tuesday.

we are not there yet?

Where is Jackson? :shrug:

[Lucinda]

69. The similarities are that both Obama and Jackson had SC wins and delegate count leads during.

the primaries. Clintons point, was that a big SC win and a delegate lead doesn't necessarily lead to the nomination. It's the same comparsion that any campaign would have made about similar circumstances. He's just saying it ain't over till it's over.

[FrenchieCat]

75. But Jackson didn't even place in the first three primaries

so it is not the same.

Does Bill Clinton think people are stupid?

He must think we are dumber than Bush or something!

[Lucinda]

79. It isn't a state by state comparison. It's about the fact that both Jackson and Obama

had the same general circumstances in common. Huge popularity, and a lead in delegates, which still didn't win Jackson the nomination, and they hope will occur with Obama. IMO was a standard "we're not out of this yet" political statement.

[babylonsister]

55. Didn't Edwards win the state 4 years ago? Why wasn't he mentioned?

And Bill was pretty pointed here, on December 14, so please explain it:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=4242263&mesg_id=4242634

[MonkeyFunk]

57. Jackson was a better example

He won it twice, and lost the nomination. Edwards only did it once.

Furthermore, Edwards went on to get the VP nomination - Jackson did not.

And if he HAD used Edwards as an example, you guys would be attacking him for going after both other candidates at once.

[Lucinda]

60. Jackson had the delegate lead at one point. As Obama does at the moment.

I dont know if JE ever did?

[babylonsister]

61. Nice attempt at a save, but no dice. Bill made a pointed reference

to Obama and 'that other black man'. Intentionally imo. It's a done deal now, but Clinton is getting/has got/will get a lot of harrassment for his remarks.

[MonkeyFunk]

62. now why would you put quotes around

'that other black man'?

Clinton said no such thing. YOU'RE drawing the conclusion that the comment related to their race, but nothing in the statement - NOTHING - indicates that to be true.

[Lucinda]

66. Put any two other politicians in the equation and you'll see it is just a relevant example.

Ther is no "there" there.

[babylonsister]

68. If there's no 'there' there, why will all the talking heads be talking about

it tomorrow? I GUARANTEE that's going to happen. Let me know about that 'there'.

[MonkeyFunk]

71. So it's now your contention

that what the talking heads are covering is true and valid?

Or only when they're attacking Clinton?

[Lucinda]

73. They will be talking about it because they get to make BIG TV and get ratings.

And keep race an issue in the election, when it shouldn't be. What other agenda they might have...is another matter entirely.

[FrenchieCat]

80. Jackson ran twice, Edwards ran Twice.....both were sons of SC

Why is Jackon the better example? Obama has only ran once.

Why is Jackson not getting the Veep spot make him a better example? and what does that have to do with Obama?

Your shit is getting raggedy and stoopid.

[MonkeyFunk]

84. My 'shit'

was a reasoned argument. You may disagree with it, but it's not raggedy and stoopid.

I used to like you very much, but you've become very very mean lately.

[FrenchieCat]

49. No. People don't see what is there

because they don't want to see it.

It's called Intellectual Dishonesty.
They know better, but they still insist that they can't see it.

If they were to see it, it would rock their world.
They don't want that.
Cause that would mess things up for them.

[AtomicKitten]

52. The Clinton camp frequently reminds us Obama is black.

The denial of this very obvious-to-everyone-else pattern is pretty breathtaking. I guess if they cop to it they would feel compelled to stop, and clearly they aren't having any of that.

[FrenchieCat]

56. This will not be easily forgotten......

Guess that Bill is sniffing for another Sista Soulja moment, hey?

Clinton's response was criticized by members and leaders of the Democratic Party's African-American supporters, such as Jesse Jackson<3><4>, and Clinton was accused by Sister Souljah of being a racist and a hypocrite.<5> However, it is often reported by the media to have also reinforced the image, in the eyes of moderate and independent voters, of a centrist politician who was “tough on crime” and “not influenced by special interests.”

Clinton's remarks were consistent with his larger strategy: running to the right of the Democratic mainstream on many issues. Clinton went on to win the presidency, and the term Sister Souljah moment subsequently entered the political lexicon.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sister_Souljah_moment

[Seeker30]

64. Why would they feel a need to remind us he's black?

You have eyes don't ya?

To call Clinton a racist is simply a right wing ploy to smear and Obama supporters are falling for it hook line and sinker.

Clinton has done more for African Americans than any president in history, unbelievable how people twist crap around.

[XemaSab]

74. Overstatement much?

What about um... ABRAHAM LINCOLN? :shrug:

[Seeker30]

83. Slavery would have ended with or without Lincoln

There was already a move in the North to end slavery, Lincoln helped it along, but it would have eventually happened either way.

African-American unemployment fell from 14.2 percent in 1992 to 7.3 percent in March 2000 -- the lowest rate on record.

The African-American poverty rate dropped from 33.1 percent in 1993 to 26.1 percent in 1998 -- the lowest level ever recorded.

Show me any leader of any country that has done that.

[FrenchieCat]

81. How about JFK and LBJ?

:shrug:

[MonkeyFunk]

72. NO

we don't see it because it's not there. It's manufactured - it's made up - it's a fairy tale.

[FrenchieCat]

82. As Bill would say........

I didn't do it!

[VotesForWomen]

89. you're catching on; the clintons are damned if they do, damned if they don't. obamabots better

be careful, because if he wins the nomination the racism whine isn't going to work in the GE.

[dkf]

90. I got it immediately. But if you don't...the print media does:

Saturday evening, after it was known that Obama was cruising to victory, Bill Clinton made the less than gracious observation that "Jesse Jackson won South Carolina in 84 and 88". The comment struck a lot of people as one more inappropriate and dismissive attempt to pigeonhole Obama as "just the black guy".

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/story/0,,2247991,00.html

Jake Tapper at ABC:

Said Bill Clinton today in Columbia, SC: "Jesse Jackson won South Carolina in '84 and '88. Jackson ran a good campaign. And Obama ran a good campaign here."

This was in response to a question about Obama saying it "took two people to beat him." Jackson had not been mentioned.

Boy, I can't understand why anyone would think the Clintons are running a race-baiting campaign to paint Obama as "the black candidate."

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/01/26/bill-clinton-obama-is-ju_n_83406.html

By the way, earlier today Bill Clinton was asked in South Carolina what it means that it takes two Clintons to compete with one Obama. He said (and I'm paraphrasing), "Well, listen. Jesse Jackson won this state, too." Yikes. That answer has nothing to do with the question, but it does do three things. One, it lowers expectations. Two, it attributes Obama's victory exclusively to his race. It basically means, "Hey, a black candidate is always going to win this state." And three, it compares Barack Obama to a guy who is considered exclusively an advocate for black America, and whom many white Americans have an uncomfortable relationship with.

And, of course, it injects race into the conversation. Considering the fact that Bill Clinton has been running around South Carolina chastising reporters for focusing on race, it's a pretty cynical thing to say. Very strategic, and not very pretty.

Update: I'm still irritated by this B. Clinton statement. It's really dismissive of black voters: it suggests that they will always vote for a black candidate, instead of evaluating candidates on their merits. And it ignores the fact that just a few weeks ago, H. Clinton was crushing Obama in heavily black South Carolina.

http://www.motherjones.com/mojoblog/archives/2008/01/7002_obama_wins_sout.html

Sen. Ted Kennedy will endorse Sen. Barack Obama tomorrow at American University, campaign sources said. The veteran Massachusetts senator follows his niece Caroline Kennedy, who today in the New York Times compared Obama to her late father.

Kennedy's decision came after weeks of mounting frustration with the Clintons over their campaign tactics, particularly those with racial overtones. Kennedy expressed those frustrations directly to the campaign but was reportedly infuriated when Bill Clinton yesterday compared Obama's South Carolina victory to Jesse Jackson winning the state's much smaller caucuses in 1984 and 1988.

http://blog.washingtonpost.com/the-trail/2008/01/27/sen_kennedy_to_endorse_obama.html?hpid=topnews

[rucky]

94. The Question is Moot.

:P

[GalleryGod]

95. It was universally taken for what it was...Smarmy at best and one last

racial dig going out the door..I wasn't insulted because, I believe old cottage cheese ass has shot his load in S.C.

Your final question was facetious...so I won't respond.

Have a great run-up to Tsunami Tuesday...watch the Weather Reports (the CLOSING POLLS):yourock:

[DrFunkenstein]

96. I Hear Obama Is a Great Football Player Like OJ Simpson

Maybe the fact that Clinton campaign aides were openly suggesting that it was a strategy to marginalize Obama as a "black candidate" says something.

Why didn't Clinton liken Obama to John Kerry or Al Gore when he won Iowa?

I suppose you think that Bill Clinton's own trip off the campaign trail to Arkansas in 1992 to execute a mentally retarded black man was about his belief in justice.

[mtnsnake]

98. Because MSM can interpret it any way they want, & they just happen to have a vendetta against Bill

because he gave them a public lip-lashing last week when he told that CNN reporter that the media should be ashamed of themselves for not covering the real issues this nation is facing.