Bill Clinton And Jesse Jackson

Speaking for me only

On Saturday, Bill Clinton made remarks about Jesse Jackson and Jackson's wins in South Carolina in 1984 and 1988. The comments seemed to me a blatant attempt to marginalize Obama's win in South Carolina. An attempt to treat Obama as "the black candidate." I thought the comments were out of order. Indeed, despicable. Clinton has been outrageously tarred by the Clinton Hating Media and many irresponsible progressive blogs, for such comments as Obama's record on Iraq being a fairytale (Ted Kennedy was completely wrong in his defense of Obama on this point yesterday - Obama's opposition to the Iraq Debacle did not survive his entry into the Senate), the questioning of Obama's experience and others.

But this comment was indefensible to me. The sad thing of course is that being compared to Jesse Jackson, a great but flawed figure, should NOT be problematic. But in a campaign for the Presidency, it is. It is important to note that Jesse Jackson does not at all agree with me or others criticizing Clinton for his comment:

I don’t read anything negative into Clinton’s observation,” Mr. Jackson said . . . MORE

Mr. Jackson said, “Bill has done so much for race relations and inclusion, I would tend not to read a negative scenario into his comments.” He said his chief concern was that Mr. Obama and Mrs. Clinton not “bloody themselves” so much that they can’t unite against the Republicans in November.

. . . Mr. Jackson said that on Saturday, Mr. Clinton had simply been recognizing Mr. Jackson’s success and said Mr. Obama recognized it too. “He said that he felt his success was built on my 84 and 88 campaigns,” Mr. Jackson said of Mr. Obama. He said there had been a “growth and maturing of the electorate” since he ran, and he saw Mr. Obama’s win as “part of the historic evolution of the New South.”

I think there is a lot of truth to what Jesse Jackson says. But I still believe Bill Clinton's comment was out of order. Let's hope we get no more of this.

< U.S. Bail Bond Policy Criticized | The Washington Elite Are Anti-Hillary; Obama Is Their Candidate >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    I Think Bill Clinton's Comments Were (5.00 / 1) (#3)
    by MO Blue on Tue Jan 29, 2008 at 08:11:02 AM EST
    out of order in this instance and completely distorted in the previous instances.

    The question arises as to when Obama was first being seen as the "black candidate." IMO that began when the media and Obama supporters took statements out of context to make the Clintons look like racists.

    IIRC the Obama campaign did put out of memo prior this "Bill" statement of all the times that the Clinton's were using being racists. They used this memo to garner votes in S.C.

    So I  guess what I'm saying is that neither side is blameless in this despicable behavior.

    If you read the whole transcript of (5.00 / 0) (#32)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Tue Jan 29, 2008 at 09:07:00 AM EST
    Clinton's statement, I think it diffuses the issue a whole lot more than the little clip shown on the TPM web site.  

    It really was distorted, just by the clipping of the one section.  Within the text of the whole discussion, it really doesn't seem that major..

    And might we add the the "Two Clintons" statement is also baiting.  

    (Don't the Clintons know that a woman should stand BEHIND her husband?)


    Where's the transcipt ? (none / 0) (#64)
    by ding7777 on Tue Jan 29, 2008 at 11:12:45 AM EST
    I can only find the clip.

    HuffPo (none / 0) (#74)
    by squeaky on Tue Jan 29, 2008 at 11:55:38 AM EST
    Has it here

    Scratch That (none / 0) (#75)
    by squeaky on Tue Jan 29, 2008 at 12:02:34 PM EST
    Just a quote,

    Link (none / 0) (#79)
    by standingup on Tue Jan 29, 2008 at 01:01:25 PM EST
    to the transcript provided by ABC's Jake Trapper.

    Relevant portions:  

    Reporter: That said, some of the folks in your own party have accused you of race baiting here.

    BC: Yeah, well I would refer them to what John Lewis and Andrew Young - two people left who were with Martin Luther King every step of the way - said. I don't have to defend myself on civil rights, and John Lewis and Andrew Young said what needed to be said about that. There's nothing left for me to say.

    Reporter: Mr. President, Senator Kerry that - had some critical comments too about some of the things that have gone on this week. He said being a former president doesn't give you a license to abuse the truth. Just wanted your reaction to that.

    BC: Yes, but did you notice he didn't specify anything? You notice that? They never do. They hurl these charges, but nothing is specified. I'm not taking the bait today. I did what I could to help Senator Kerry every time he needed me, and every time he asked me, and I have no -- he can support whomever he wants, for whatever reason he wants, but there's nothing for me to respond to because I don't believe in labeling, I think he should have specifics, so today we just want everybody to vote.

    David Wright: What does it say about Barack Obama that it takes two of you to beat him?
    BC: [Laughs] That's just bait, too. Jesse Jackson won South Carolina twice, in `84 and `88. And he ran a good campaign, and Senator Obama's run a good campaign here. He's run a good campaign everywhere, he's got a, he is a good candidate, with a good organization.

    DW: He says he is sometimes not sure who his opponent is, you or his wife.

    BC: That is bait, too.

    My take is that there is more to the context of the exchange when you look at the two questions asked just prior to David Wright's question.  I can easily see how Bill's answer set off the reaction it did amongst those who object.  I think it has been overplayed.  I can't speak to Bill's intent but he did step in it this time.    


    I was shocked by people's response to this. (5.00 / 0) (#85)
    by derridog on Tue Jan 29, 2008 at 09:09:46 PM EST
    When I first heard the talking heads saying it was an insult, I didn't know what they were talking about. Then I realized that they all think that comparing Obama to Jesse Jackson is an insult to Obama. I was infuriated by that. I'm a white woman and I was a Jesse Jackson delegate to the State of New Mexico's convention in 1988. I have the highest regard for Jesse Jackson. He stood up and kept going (and still keeps going) in spite of the most incredible racist attacks by the pundits on him of any black man other than Al Sharpton.  Talk about the pot calling the kettle black. They accuse Clinton of being a racist, yet they have always ridiculed Jackson and called him a publicity hog and worse. It's always yuk yuk yuk with those guys when they want to put somebody down. It doesn't matter what Jackson does. They attack him  just as they did Martin Luther King and in the same way, with ridicule.  Now they are doing it to Clinton.

    The one thing I remember strongly about Jackson's campaign in 88 was that when he went to the mike to speak at one of his rallies, some white racist kids had cut the line so he had to shout. What a great joke, right?   Yet, he maintained his dignity with those kinds of attacks and he always has.  

    I think you all  must be very young and not very perceptive about what constitutes racism. Perhaps Bill Clinton did mean this as a code method of pointing out that Obama was black. But if he did that in the face of all the crap he's been getting about being a racist and the willingness -even crazed frenzy --of the TV pundits and politicians to pounce on him for every perceived "evil" deed in this regard, he is a lot stupider than I think he is.

    Perhaps, just perhaps, like me, he doesn't think that referring to Jesse Jackson or comparing Obama to him is an insult. Maybe Jackson doesn't think so either. Imagine that.  What does that say about what YOU think! Pluck the mote out of thine own eye, guys.

    This is just a little food for thought!


    I'm with you, Derridog (none / 0) (#87)
    by gyrfalcon on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 12:14:20 AM EST
    I didn't get to be a delegate, but I voted for Jesse Jackson twice, too.

    I think a big part of the problem is that people with lifelong clear consciences on race just aren't in the (guilty) habit of carefully censoring what they say on these subjects.  I think it probably never occured to Bill Clinton that pointing out the significance of a candidate's natural voting bloc could ever be remarkable.

    I actually don't think it would occur to Obama, either, but he permitted his campaign to have the very deliberate strategy of looking for anything they could pounce on as racism or race-baiting in order to destroy HRC's support among African-Americans and (guilty) white liberals.

    I don't care how many stirring speeches the man makes on race in America, this tactic is the ugliest I've ever seen in my pretty long life by one Democrat against another, and I cannot forgive it.


    I agree (none / 0) (#8)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Jan 29, 2008 at 08:23:07 AM EST
    I thought so too... (none / 0) (#16)
    by cannondaddy on Tue Jan 29, 2008 at 08:35:35 AM EST
    all the way till the Jesse Jackson comment.  There was no reason to bring that up unless that was your plan all along.

    Think You Are Reading Too Much (5.00 / 1) (#26)
    by MO Blue on Tue Jan 29, 2008 at 08:54:05 AM EST
    into one comment. Let's look at some of what actually went on:

    Bill Clinton said Obama's portrayal of his stand on Iraq was a "fairy tale." No way I can find anything in the least bit racial in that comment. Yet, it was called out as being racist by Obama's supporters.

    Hillary's comment on the fact that it took a president to enact laws to make MLK's dream a reality is not IMO a racial statement. Yet, Obama's supporters decided to make it so.

    Jesse Jackson, Jr., a part of Obama's campaign, decided to make Hillary's so called tears a racial issue, when he said she would cry over her appearance but had no tears for victims of Katrina.


    I AGREE. (5.00 / 0) (#39)
    by felizarte on Tue Jan 29, 2008 at 09:33:17 AM EST
    If the person himself (Jesse Jackson)  does not find anything wrong with it, why are you reading so much into that? And I think it is unfair to seem to be so sure about Bill Clinton's "intent" in his statements other than what they are.

    Race, gender, religion, are factors in this election. Certainly the polls and primary results would indicate that.  Otherwise why do they polll for the men's vote, the black votes, women's vote, the evangelicals, mormons, etc. Those who want it to be a racial, gender or religious issue will do so even if they hardly ever talk about it because it is "unacceptable."  


    So (none / 0) (#38)
    by Jgarza on Tue Jan 29, 2008 at 09:32:58 AM EST
    the what she/he really meant also goes for the Clintons.

    Someone posted a visual aide (none / 0) (#22)
    by andgarden on Tue Jan 29, 2008 at 08:40:28 AM EST
    of the polling in the SC primary.

    On topic, I think.


    Ugh, that myth again. (none / 0) (#33)
    by Geekesque on Tue Jan 29, 2008 at 09:11:19 AM EST
    Note the polling taken in the month after McClurkin showed him uniformly BEHIND by double digits.

    He started pulling ahead when it became clear he could win Iowa.


    Not a myth (none / 0) (#42)
    by andgarden on Tue Jan 29, 2008 at 09:41:25 AM EST
    The numbers started going up sharply, and didn't stop. Or do you think that those concerts were no intended to do anything?

    Started going up sharply? (none / 0) (#52)
    by Geekesque on Tue Jan 29, 2008 at 10:25:02 AM EST

    9/26-27/07:  Clinton 43, Obama 30
    11/20/07:  Clinton 43, Obama 33

    Dramatic spike:  Obama within the margin of error


    10/26-29/07:  Clinton 41, Obama 19
    11/26-29/07:  Clinton 45, Obama 21

    Dramatic spike, Clinton gains relative to Obama, both within margin of error

    Other November polling:

    SurveyUSA:  Clinton 47, Obama 33
    Pew/AP:  Clinton 45, Obama 31
    Clemson:  Clinton 19, Obama 17 (Undecided well ahead)

    Sorry, but your picture doesn't prove a damn thing.  Just like those kewl graphics didn't help out the 911 Truthers.


    Geekesque, have you addressed (none / 0) (#59)
    by oculus on Tue Jan 29, 2008 at 10:40:59 AM EST
    Obama's choosing McClurkin to headline some campaign rallies?  

    The trendline says what it says (none / 0) (#73)
    by andgarden on Tue Jan 29, 2008 at 11:38:13 AM EST
    if you have a problem with Mark Blumenthal's data set, that's a different discussion, and something you probably ought to take up with him.

    Yes it is all (none / 0) (#37)
    by Jgarza on Tue Jan 29, 2008 at 09:31:39 AM EST
    Obama and the media, the Clintons are always the victim, never responsible for anything.

    By The Same Standard, Obama Is Never (none / 0) (#44)
    by MO Blue on Tue Jan 29, 2008 at 09:42:15 AM EST
    responsible for what he says or the actions of his campaign. Somehow the Clintons are responsible for the memo his campaign put out before the S.C. election. The Clinton are responsible for everything and his campaign has no responsiblity for whatever goes on.

    The media and Obama (none / 0) (#55)
    by Stellaaa on Tue Jan 29, 2008 at 10:30:09 AM EST
    After the Reno Gazette interview, read this article from Washington Post how Axelrod handles Obama, not one word impromptu. Whereas Bill, loves to talk so the sharks go at him. Yesterday someone posted I think from ABC the entire transcript of the conversation from an ABC reporter. In that context, the guy was being so positive and I truly think he was being chatty and not calculating. But then again I truly do not believe the Jessie Association is an insult. And if the link works I want praise.

    All Praise To You - Oh Great And Glorious (none / 0) (#72)
    by MO Blue on Tue Jan 29, 2008 at 11:30:30 AM EST

    Nope (none / 0) (#80)
    by Jgarza on Tue Jan 29, 2008 at 02:43:09 PM EST
    I never said nothing is his fault.  I'm pointing out that your answer for everything wrong is the Media.

    Disagree (none / 0) (#83)
    by G Davis on Tue Jan 29, 2008 at 04:38:31 PM EST
    The bggest problem with the contention that the race baiting was media/Obama supporter driven is you're forgetting who's hearing things being said.

    AA might interpret phrases differently than we white folks.  What is apparently an innocent comment made by a white to a white could be dogwhistling to an AA or Hispanic or Asian or whatever.

    The reactions to the whole Bill thing was pretty far reaching and disparate.  It says something that so many reacted so violently, doesn't it?

    I think it does disservice to the conversation to dismiss reactions as simply media/opponent driven.  It means we're not listening.


    I can't point to the Daily Howler often enough.. (5.00 / 1) (#6)
    by TheRealFrank on Tue Jan 29, 2008 at 08:15:17 AM EST
    See here.

    It's an excellent piece of writing, as usual.

    Bob is almost always incisive (5.00 / 1) (#10)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Jan 29, 2008 at 08:28:18 AM EST
    If he would just get an RSS feed (none / 0) (#18)
    by andgarden on Tue Jan 29, 2008 at 08:38:42 AM EST
    I would keep up with him.

    It's worht the visit (none / 0) (#21)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Jan 29, 2008 at 08:40:08 AM EST
    I know, and have for years (none / 0) (#23)
    by andgarden on Tue Jan 29, 2008 at 08:41:12 AM EST
    but I want everything right away!!!

    If Jesse Jackson (5.00 / 0) (#25)
    by Kathy on Tue Jan 29, 2008 at 08:52:15 AM EST
    says Bill Clinton was not being racist or inappropriate, I think we should listen.  I think that the white, northern press has a very knee-jerk reaction, especially against southerners, whenever anything comes up about race.  Having been born and raised in the south, living in an incredibly racially diverse city like Atlanta, I can tell you that it is not possible here to invoke the name of Jesse Jackson and have folks assume it has negative connotations.  He is rightfully revered as a leader and a thoughtful man.  He is understood to be a remarkably powerful behind-the-scenes political operative.

    I think to say that Clinton was being racist by invoking his name, in a state that adores Jackson, no less, is a bit insulting to the legacy of Jesse Jackson.

    And I say this with all due respect to BTD, who is absolutely entitled to his opinion.

    My opinion is that if one of our greatest civil rights leaders is saying that he was no insulted, then we should understand that he is intelligent and thoughtful enough to know the truth.

    It was not racist (none / 0) (#30)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Jan 29, 2008 at 09:03:32 AM EST
    It was to me what I described.

    And Jackson's voice carries great weight here no doubt.

    I think he has ended the issue for now.


    BTD (none / 0) (#36)
    by Kathy on Tue Jan 29, 2008 at 09:28:26 AM EST
    I meant the coverage in general and not your words in specific.

    joc (5.00 / 0) (#51)
    by Kathy on Tue Jan 29, 2008 at 10:24:02 AM EST
    No one cares about sexism.  It is part of the fabric of American life.

    The truth (none / 0) (#56)
    by Stellaaa on Tue Jan 29, 2008 at 10:35:25 AM EST
    is the I find some of the younger men who say the horrible things about women to have given it a new life, almost like a sport. I know it's a generalization, but I think particularly the internet lets them say things that they would not say in public.

    stellaaa (5.00 / 1) (#68)
    by Kathy on Tue Jan 29, 2008 at 11:27:26 AM EST
    also, that they would not say to their mothers.  Thank God she stays up in the kitchen while they type these nasty things on the internet.

    Holy crap (5.00 / 1) (#54)
    by Kathy on Tue Jan 29, 2008 at 10:29:59 AM EST
    Meek says that the Jesse Jackson comment was made at 10am Saturday morning.  That's right, before the polls closed, before the votes were counted.  Also, he says there was another question that was edited out.


    For Making Links (none / 0) (#58)
    by squeaky on Tue Jan 29, 2008 at 10:38:28 AM EST
    When did he say it (none / 0) (#65)
    by Stellaaa on Tue Jan 29, 2008 at 11:14:29 AM EST
    was it Sunday or Saturday morning. Meeks say Saturday.

    "Clinton was being a meanie" (2.00 / 1) (#17)
    by TheRealFrank on Tue Jan 29, 2008 at 08:38:22 AM EST
    It's amazing how that is now accepted as truth. Bill Clinton's campaign statements were certainly not more harsh than statements made by other campaigns (although I do agree that he should have avoided making the Jesse Jackson statement; but I'm certainly not going to conclude he did it on purpose either).

    But, it has become Truth that he was being mean and out of line.

    It always sort of freaks me out how that happens, how things become "true" because of how the media reports it.

    I am referring only to the Jackson comment (none / 0) (#31)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Jan 29, 2008 at 09:04:25 AM EST
    I had no problem at all with what Clinton said before.

    Indeed, I agree with a lot of it.


    Was it out of order? I suppose (none / 0) (#1)
    by MarkL on Tue Jan 29, 2008 at 07:55:04 AM EST
    Was it a HUGE insult??? It's racist to think so, and hypersensitive.

    What I'm more interested in today is that everybody sees how Obama snubbed Hillary after TK invited her over. Later, he was all smiles with George.

    Race is always difficult (5.00 / 1) (#9)
    by TheRealFrank on Tue Jan 29, 2008 at 08:25:01 AM EST
    Consider these two statements:

    "Huckabee won Iowa because of the evangelical vote, just like Robertson"

    "Obama won South Carolina because of the black vote, just like Jesse Jackson".

    #1 will be met with "yeah, you have a point there"

    #2 will be met with "hey, that's racist"

    It has also been mentioned numerous times that "women are voting for Hillary", and few find that offensive. But if it becomes "blacks are voting for Obama", it's a touchy subject. It's difficult.


    Race remains the untouchable issue (none / 0) (#20)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Jan 29, 2008 at 08:39:26 AM EST
    in the US.

    true but it doesn't change the fact (none / 0) (#34)
    by hellothere on Tue Jan 29, 2008 at 09:23:22 AM EST
    that it is an active factor which was very evident in south carolina.

    I think it is (none / 0) (#60)
    by Stellaaa on Tue Jan 29, 2008 at 10:42:15 AM EST
    to people who think it should be invisible. When people think we tidied up the race thing, everyone is equal, they don't want to hear it. But African Americans and other racial minorities, talk about it and recognize that it still exists and its institutional manifestations. This is where I think the strange twist took place: Obama goes to S, Carolina and if you watch his tapes there does the "Brother" shtick to prove his bona fides. Now remember AA did not believe he was "black enough". So he had to prove that race was an issue from the start of going down there. Now this incident happened at the end, so his defenders wanted to turn off the Black Obama and bring back, the Opaque Obama. Geepers creepers. If the Maistream Blogosphere and the MSM did not get their tits in a ringer how was Bill's comment racist, contrived to hurt Opaque Obama, or even of importance?

    so, you don't think Obama will (none / 0) (#62)
    by oculus on Tue Jan 29, 2008 at 10:44:14 AM EST
    be mentioning Bill's dancing ability in the future?

    What's "TK"? (none / 0) (#86)
    by gyrfalcon on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 11:56:52 PM EST
    I have no clue what you're referring to.  Could you explain?

    George Wallace carried Michigan in 1972. (none / 0) (#2)
    by Ben Masel on Tue Jan 29, 2008 at 08:04:41 AM EST
    and didn't win the nomination.

    Re: (none / 0) (#47)
    by Steve M on Tue Jan 29, 2008 at 09:55:57 AM EST
    George Wallace won with hundreds of thousands of crossover votes from Republicans.  Not really a fair point to bring up in this context and I feel compelled to stick up for my home state.

    Hey, it's just a fact. (none / 0) (#76)
    by Ben Masel on Tue Jan 29, 2008 at 12:12:19 PM EST
    No different than Bill's bringing up the fact of Jesse's SC victories.

    No matter how you look at it (none / 0) (#4)
    by Saul on Tue Jan 29, 2008 at 08:11:03 AM EST
    the damage was done and it hurt Hilary.  If Hilary does not want any more collateral damage he needs to reign in Bill.  His role has to change.  He has to be very careful what he says before saying anything.  The media is going to watch him like a hawk for any funny remarks.  Got to walk on eggs IMO. Hilary also has to be very careful what she says and how she says it or she could really blow her chances before Super Tuesday.  I wonder if TK originally was going to endorse Hilary but after he saw what happen switched to Obama, don't know if that is true or not.  Hilary needs to find a big gun like TK to endorse her to even things out.  I do not consider the two Clintos vs TK and Obama as an even match like MSNBC said last night.  At this point in time Obama has the edge

    Personally (5.00 / 1) (#11)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Jan 29, 2008 at 08:28:53 AM EST
    I disagree.

    I would put him out more, but restrict his comments on Obama.


    In fact (5.00 / 3) (#12)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Jan 29, 2008 at 08:29:24 AM EST
    I think I would have him sort of follow Ted Kennedy around.

    I Like That Idea n/t (none / 0) (#14)
    by MO Blue on Tue Jan 29, 2008 at 08:31:12 AM EST
    I think its too late (none / 0) (#67)
    by Saul on Tue Jan 29, 2008 at 11:23:31 AM EST
    for that.  No matter what Bill says not even it  comes out nice it will probably be tuned out.  The media is not interested on how nice he will be from here on out they are only interested on how bad he will be and will report accordingly.  Let's face it the media dislike the Clintons from the get go and are in love with Obama.    Most male candidates that are running for the presidency do not have their spouses as outspoken as Bill has been.  Ms. Edwards did show some bravado but not like Bill. Moreover, Hilary's image would be positively bolstered if she can show that she can do this on her own.  You can't run on a theme of change and one of those changes is breaking the ultimate glass ceiling and at the same time say I really can't do it unless my husband campaigns as if he was running for the presidency.

    i could say that obama needs to (5.00 / 0) (#35)
    by hellothere on Tue Jan 29, 2008 at 09:25:19 AM EST
    reign in his wife. she makes some statements also that sound racist, but no that won't be discussed. and if it is brought up, then the racist term is applied. in actuality it is hardball politics and some of the voters are quite naive in my opinion.

    Yep, the other of the two Obamas, as early as (5.00 / 1) (#49)
    by Cream City on Tue Jan 29, 2008 at 10:05:15 AM EST
    Iowa: "Ain't no black people in Iowa!"

    And her dissembling after her hit on the Clintons' marriage . . . if media paid as much attention to Michelle as they do to Bill, it would open some eyes and ears.

    Of course, media don't and won't; he's a former president, she's a woman, etc. -- and I expect a spouse to be ferocious for the other one.  But I also am aware of what the two Obamas say as well as what the two Clintons say, and the media are not aware.  (Because the media are not self-aware. . . .)


    For the life of me, I do not understand how (none / 0) (#45)
    by MarkL on Tue Jan 29, 2008 at 09:42:38 AM EST
    MO is an asset. She is every bit the knife-in-the-back  social climber, from what I have read of her comments.

    i am not fan of mo either. (none / 0) (#48)
    by hellothere on Tue Jan 29, 2008 at 10:00:14 AM EST
    she makes comments that make obama sometimes sound henpecked. no wonder he gets snippy with hillary. the poor guy has a strong woman at home and then on the campaign trail. smile!

    Flawed (none / 0) (#5)
    by Abdul Abulbul Amir on Tue Jan 29, 2008 at 08:13:30 AM EST
    ..being compared to Jesse Jackson, a great but flawed figure...

    A figure who most everyone felt that his flaws would doom him in the general.  That was the comparison Bubba was hoping the listener would draw.  But Obama does not carry anywhere near the flaws Jackson did and does.

    BTW, where was Jesse on the Duke rape hoax?

    That was my point (5.00 / 1) (#7)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Jan 29, 2008 at 08:22:38 AM EST
    To answer your question, I have no idea where Jesse was on the Duke rape case.

    Jesse Jackson on Duke (5.00 / 1) (#15)
    by Jeralyn on Tue Jan 29, 2008 at 08:32:36 AM EST
    He was in the "something happened to those women" and "the women were abused" club.  Read him in his own words.

    Reading from the script (none / 0) (#13)
    by cannondaddy on Tue Jan 29, 2008 at 08:30:05 AM EST
    For two weeks people like Hannity and Rush were saying that the Clintons race baiting was an attempt to discredit Obama's upcoming win in SC.  Rush had it wrong though... he said the would never put that out there themselves.  Clinton knew anything he said even close to having a racial overtone to it would be picked up. He knew that but said it anyway.  There are dozens of ways to say "he ran a strong campaign, we're moving on" but instead he read the lines stright from the race division playbook.  It really makes me sad for our country.

    People are reacting to this with their own (none / 0) (#69)
    by ding7777 on Tue Jan 29, 2008 at 11:27:34 AM EST
    built in racial radar.

    "Jesse Jackson won South Carolina in '84 and '88. Jackson ran a good campaign.  And Obama ran a good campaign here."

    Maybe that getting 50% plus of the SC primary does not guarantee the Party's nomination?  

    Go beyond race and look back to the last guy who got 50% plus and failed to get the nomination - Jesse Jackson in 88 and 84.

    My 1st impression when I saw the clip was Hillary can still get the nomination no matter well Obama did in SC.

    SC Democratic primary is not a kingmaker.


    Why (none / 0) (#77)
    by cannondaddy on Tue Jan 29, 2008 at 12:34:19 PM EST
    Why, after "shaming" the media for misrepresenting his ealier commnents, would someone as gifted a politcian Bill make that comment.  As I said you can get the same point across in many different ways.  Also he said it well before the polls had closed, he didn't know it would be over 50%.  I don't think people are viewing this through their own "racial radar", but their own choice of candidate.

    The polls predicted a romp (none / 0) (#78)
    by ding7777 on Tue Jan 29, 2008 at 12:49:44 PM EST
    and I'm sure the Clintons had their internals which said the same.

    Realclear avg. (none / 0) (#81)
    by cannondaddy on Tue Jan 29, 2008 at 03:32:35 PM EST
    had Obama with 38%. Nice try.

    Seems reasonable. (none / 0) (#19)
    by andgarden on Tue Jan 29, 2008 at 08:38:51 AM EST

    Good post (none / 0) (#24)
    by commissar on Tue Jan 29, 2008 at 08:45:03 AM EST
    You are the Unmarsh.

    questions (none / 0) (#27)
    by lilburro on Tue Jan 29, 2008 at 08:54:59 AM EST
    Mike Pridmore on myDD is still digging into whether another question was asked before the "it takes two question."  According to Rep. Kendrick Meek, who was with Bill at the time, there was, about "historic black candidates."  He talks about this in the CNN video.  


    I need evidence (none / 0) (#28)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Jan 29, 2008 at 09:02:32 AM EST
    Clinton or Reagan (none / 0) (#29)
    by robrecht on Tue Jan 29, 2008 at 09:02:42 AM EST
    He's an ex-president for goodness sake.  If he didn't know how that comment would be received, senility must be setting in.  He was so much more helpful to the party when praising all the candidates over anything the Repubes had to offer then adding that he liked Hillary best, of course.  Maybe that's no longer possible now that it's really a 2 man race but where's his brilliant campaign smarts gone?  

    sen. obama is a (none / 0) (#43)
    by cpinva on Tue Jan 29, 2008 at 09:41:42 AM EST
    "black" candidate? when did this happen? how come i wasn't informed? geez, you'd think someone would have said something before this! i have to find out here, instead of being told in private. how long has sen. obama been a "black" candidate, and was it a difficult transition? did he tell his mom, before the media announced it?

    and that clinton woman! when did she become female? didn't anyone notice this before now? how has her husband reacted to this revelation? will this be a problem with the electorate?

    idiotic? you betcha! about as idiotic as pretending that race and gender have only recently been "injected" into the campaign; they've been a part since the day that each announced their respective candidacies.

    this doesn't mandate that they be automatically considered a negative part of the campaign, far from it. this is truly a historic moment; a black man and white female, both seriously contending for the nation's highest elective office.

    what's not to enjoy? further, what's not to discuss? if we can't openly talk about these issues, then the candidacies of these two will be meaningless, they will both have wasted their time and energy.

    I sent Talk Left a video clip (none / 0) (#46)
    by jen on Tue Jan 29, 2008 at 09:54:31 AM EST
    last night of Congressman Meeks on CNN yesterday. He claims there was another question that was cut from the video of Clinton's interview (he was there) asking Bill about historic voting in South Carolina.

    Here's the clip:


    If this is true -- and why would Congressman Meeks lie? it puts Bill's comment re: Jesse Jackson in context.

    The question is cut from both the video and the transcript. What does this say about our esteemed media?

    I need evidence (none / 0) (#50)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Jan 29, 2008 at 10:12:52 AM EST
    The only way I can think of (none / 0) (#53)
    by jen on Tue Jan 29, 2008 at 10:29:13 AM EST
    to determine if Congressman Meeks is lying is to get access to the original video. I have no clue how to go about that.

    I've emailed the clip to many, including Josh, Glenn Greenwald, Taylor, and Craig Crawford. I posted a link to the video at Jake Tapper's Political Punch where he posted the supposed entire transcript and my post was removed. Twice.


    Precisely (none / 0) (#57)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Jan 29, 2008 at 10:36:53 AM EST
    And the Clinton campaign simply has not pushed back on this giving me pause to your narrative.

    This is eyewitness evidence (none / 0) (#61)
    by Cream City on Tue Jan 29, 2008 at 10:43:46 AM EST
    Is the Congressman lying?

    Personally, I would trust (5.00 / 0) (#66)
    by jen on Tue Jan 29, 2008 at 11:23:23 AM EST
    a Congressman before I trust the media when it comes to the Clintons. But that's just me...

    everyone says (5.00 / 0) (#71)
    by Kathy on Tue Jan 29, 2008 at 11:30:05 AM EST
    Clinton should fight back, but he did on the Fairy Tale comment and look where it got him.  Same with the MLK thing from Hillary.  No matter what they do, it turns out being sour grapes or...whatever.

    I think remaining silent and letting the blogs (for what they are worth now) try to turn up the truth is the best strategy.


    Frankly (none / 0) (#63)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Jan 29, 2008 at 10:57:28 AM EST
    Pols are not most credible people in the world.

    I need more.


    Part of the reason (none / 0) (#70)
    by jen on Tue Jan 29, 2008 at 11:28:12 AM EST
    I sent this information out to all the "big" bloggers is I thought you guys would have a better chance of uncovering the truth than I would. But maybe not. I thought it was kind of important.

    Jackson is not dumb (none / 0) (#82)
    by G Davis on Tue Jan 29, 2008 at 04:30:52 PM EST
    Jackson is not politically dumb.  Why would he jump into a media flame war with Bill?  It would only serve to hurt his status with all his very profitable activities.

    I thought Bill went way over the top with that comment, and thought the lame attempt by some to paint this as some sort of editing hatchet job was really bad.  Bill said what he said, it was a mistake, put it in the whole body of work and decide for yourself.

    nah (4.00 / 0) (#84)
    by Judith on Tue Jan 29, 2008 at 06:22:35 PM EST
    Bill said nothing worng.  It is bs to say he did.