B. Clinton cites Jackson in explaining Obama victory

January 26, 2008

I really, sincerely wish Bill Clinton wouldn’t make comments like these.

For those of you who can’t watch clips online, the video shows a reporter asking the former president earlier today, “What does it say about Barack Obama that it takes two of you to beat him?”

Bill Clinton responds, “Jesse Jackson won South Carolina twice, in ’84 and ’88, and he ran a good campaign. And Sen. Obama’s run a good campaign here; he’s run a good campaign everywhere. He’s a good candidate with a good organization.”

Now, given the racial angle to the campaign, it’s probably unhelpful for the former president to discount the Obama victory by citing Jesse Jackson.

It’s possible the Clinton campaign could argue that BC’s Jackson reference had nothing to do with race, and the former president was just mentioning Jackson to demonstrate that candidates who do well in the South Carolina primary don’t always go on to win the race.

But why, then, not mention John Edwards’ victory in the state four years ago? Why specifically connect Obama to Jesse Jackson after weeks of talk about misusing race in the campaign?

…because he is a power hungry jackass that can’t believe he and his wife are getting their asses whooped by one of his own black folk!

  • Just imagine the rath if someone other than “America’s First Black President” uttered these comments.

  • The right wing has always railed about Bill Clinton’s lack of discipline. Now, here’s HRC with what I thought was a tight, well-organized campaign and somehow Bill seems to be operating outside of that disciplined structure. I don’t get it. Do they want him outside of that, or can he not be controlled? I don’t get it.

  • This sort of alleviates all doub from AP, on TPM:

    Clinton campaign strategists denied any intentional effort to stir the racial debate. But they said they believe the fallout has had the effect of branding Obama as “the black candidate,” a tag that could hurt him outside the South.

    Yeah… man, sometimes I wonder if these Clinton strategist who keep talking to the press are plants, they’re that stupid. I just haven’t been able to let myself believe they could play this game….

  • this seems a bit of an overreaction. race is an objective fact; it isn’t “bringing race into the campaign” to point out that South Carolina has traditionally been a state in which a black candidate did well anymore than it is for news outlets to point out that 50% of the voters were black. after every state, the losing candidates spin why the loss was explainable – Clinton noted that Jackson did well here, too.

    What am I missing? How is this (a) different than what any of them say after any state they lose? (b) anything that offends anyone? Is the rule that the mere mention of a racial characteristic, or another black person, by the white guy is offensive?

    (By the way, it is also likely to backfire – this will only encourage everyone to note that, if we’re comparing performance, Obama did many times better among whites in SC than Jackson did. i didn’t say it was smart politics, just that it is not offensive.)

  • Somewhat off-topic, but part of the Obama as “black candidate” conversation:

    I was flipping between the three cable news networks during Obama’s speech and noticed something. On MSNBC and CNN, it was obvious that more than half the people seated directly behind Obama were white. But on Fox, the picture was tinted to such a degree, that it looked like virtually all the spectators directly behind Obama were black. Did anyone else notice this, or was it just my TV? It seemed like Fox may have manipulated the picture to obscure the non-blacks seated behind Obama, and to make him look like he only had black support.

  • Jim E — Send that to MM and TPM, etc.!

    The Clinton tactics are getting increasingly harder to defend. They’ve always bugged me, and I want to see someone who can play hardball. Bush’s tactics give me no qualms about pushing a rumor like Larry Flint’s Bush abortion story. The people who do this, if they aren’t going to get blowback from the press or the public, need to know we can respond in kind. You know, Roshambo — you can kick me in the nuts, so long as you are aware I will take my turn.

    And I still think this is but a hint of the kind of tactics the first black candidate for President will face — if FOX is manipulating images to make all his supporters look black, that’s just a tiny preview of what he’s going to face, and how well he responds very much tells me how he will fare.

    But what irks me is that Clinton is doing this to Obama, not Karl Rove. I can put up with a lot — but attempting to paint him as the “black” candidate is just too much. And it won’t work. I mean, I had to sit there and try to think for a while before I figured out what was controversial about what Clinton said, which means Obama, at least in my mind, has been very successful in the “post-racial” aspect of his politics.

    These constant racial comments from Clinton strategist have really shocked and surprised me, and seem so out of character, I’ve been willing to give a lot of rope because until now, Clinton’s record on civil rights has been beyond question, which is why this has been so hard to swallow.

    I know Obama’s campaign is built on casting HIllary as Rove, but it would be equally shocking to discover he’s that good — both smearing Hillary, while remaining above it all.

  • Bill Clinton has gone from being called the first black president to resorting to Republican tactics in trying to win by resorting to using race.

    An entire wiki is being developed to document the use of race by the Clinton campaign:
    http://clintonattacksobama.pbwiki.com/Incident+Tracker

    In his column yesterday Bob Herbert wrote, “The Clinton camp knows what it’s doing, and its slimy maneuvers have been working.” The first half is definitely right. The second half remains open. The Clintons will keep trying to portray the South Carolina victory as a black v. white battle, but it is far from clear that voters in the Super Tuesday states will fall for this type of slime.

  • I’m a big fan of Bill Clinton. Always have been.

    I saw that clip earlier today. It’s disappointing. Very disappointing. There is no way to interpret it except as “Well, in South Carolina the black candidate always wins. Jesse Jackson won here twice.”

    Bill is hurting Hillary more than he is helping.

  • beep52,

    Do they want him outside of that, or can he not be controlled?

    It’s not a lack of discipline. This is intentional. Bill Clinton dominates the discussion sucks the air out of everything else, as they hope this will keep Obama from getting his message out. Then they send out their mailers which lie about Obama’s positions and record, hoping this is all they find out. Most importantly, Clinton and some of the surrogates have continually used race-baiting in order to portray this as a black v. white contest, hoping to win the majority of the white vote.

  • I’m sure that there are many of you that want SC to be the bell weather of the primaries. The trouble is that what has happened there was expected and Bill is not telling you anything you didn’t already know or were willing to ignore. Let’s get on the Feb 5th.

  • its true obama only won because of the black vote. the way jesse jackson did. Why try to spin it another way. You do want to hear the truth.

  • Let’s see. The Clinton Campaign is headed into the SC Primary and they think the thing to do is to “race bait”. Just who would that appeal to? I mean what do you think they stood to accomplish? Even Obama rejects that. Politics are politics but one thing the Clinton Campaign is not – is stupid. I think you need to vent your rath on the Media. they need it more than the Clinton Campaign

  • Obama is comparing him self to MLK JFK, Reagan and Lincoln. Now he is jesse jackson. so what. Is saying he is like Jesse Jackson racist. Is comparing someone to Jesse Jackson that bad…

  • CB, get a grip. What facts did Bill Clinton get wrong?

    I hate the primary system. If the Democratic nominee (whoever) loses in the November, then Chairman Howard Dean should declare the primary system dead! and demand a national vote-by-mail primary system. With the media treating the process as a “horse race,” we all lose. Enough! Screw Iowa! Screw New Hampshire!

  • http://www.scdp.org/primary_results/

    Hillary carried two whole counties in SC—Horry and Oconee. Everything else went to Obama. That, fillphil, was not expected.

    Obama took over 55% of the SC vote, and got more than double the votes that Hillary got. Those results were not expected, either. Several of the pre-vote polls still had Edwards in the upper teens, percentage-wise, but they were putting HRC only between 8% and 14% behind Obama. No one predicted that Obama would garner a victory margin of 29%.

    Given all of the activities scheduled in Florida over the next few days—activities that are on Clinton’s official campaign website, when she agreed to suspend all active campaigning operations in Florida for the primary—I imagine she’ll try to create another “bogus” victory in that state, as a prerequisite to February 5th. However, the possibility of the huge turnout in SC, when added to the trouncing delivered to Fortress Clinton by Obama, could inflict serious damage to Hillary’s poll-numbers in many of those 2/5 states.

    Those pro-Hillary polling numbers in all the 2/5 states include a great many “leaning Hillary” voters—and SC has shown that even those who were staunchly for HRC shifted to the Obama camp within the final 72 hours of the polls opening.

    Now, as for what Billy J is telling me—I see a man who was asked a simple question, and he replied with a “canned” answer that had absolutely nothing to do with the question. I say “canned” because the answer was so obviously rehearsed that it hurts when I have to acknowledge that I voted for the guy—TWICE. He walked into the question, expecting the question.

    But—and this is the BIG “but” of the issue, as I’m seeing it—Billy J did something very peculiar. Look at the rest of his reply:

    ***And Sen. Obama’s run a good campaign here; he’s run a good campaign everywhere. He’s a good candidate with a good organization.***

    One might think, based on such a wistful comment, that Billy J has seen the future—and it is a future that does not bode well for another Clinton presidency. It’s as if he had seen that “light at the end of the tunnel”—and realized that he was also hearing the faint rumble of an oncoming train….

  • pure clinton sleaze and garbage.

    so why do they have so many supports still?

    we can do much better than billery.

  • Goodbye, Bill, and take Hill the Pill with you, and don’t forget, Monica, too. I am getting more and more sick of these two (or three) and I have zero interest in have their soap-operas back in our WH for next four years.It’s all over now, Baby Bill. Hill is very angry and I really would not like to be living in Iran if Hill gets into the WH.

  • I was going through the exit poll results at CNN just now backing out the total percentages of black vs non-black (their terms) votes for each candidate, when it suddenly occurred to me to wonder how black voters made up 55 percent of the total turn-out. Nationwide, black people comprise about 10-15% of the total population, so it didn’t seem to quite add up even given that African Americans do tend to vote overwhelmingly Democratic and SC is a pretty red state.

    So I looked up the demographics for South Carolina and found to my surprise that proportionally, the percentage of black people there is actually 29%, more than double the national percentage, which I did not know. Hispanic representation is also way low in SC, at less than 1/4 the national percentage. Hispanics have actually been our largest minority for a while now.

  • Oh, and in case anyone was wondering, using CNN numbers the Black vs. Non-black percentages for all age groups combined in SC works out thusly:

    Black Voters:
    Barack Obama 78%
    Hillary Clinton 19%
    John Edwards 3%

    Non-Black Voters:
    Barack Obama 24%
    Hillary Clinton 37%
    John Edwards 39%

    So Barack Obama seems to have gotten almost an 80% share of the black vote in SC and less than one quarter of the vote from all other ethnic groups combined. Bill Clinton’s remark may make a little more sense in that context.

  • Unless I’ve missed something, Obama was predicted to win SC all along, wasn’t he? And by a fair margin. So, why all the hoopla over that fact that the numbers turned out as expected?

    I listened to some of Obama’s victory speech, which, as an Edwards supporter, was not an easy thing to do.

    All I can say is “ugh.” I don’t know if it’s deliberate or unconscious, but he is mimicking the pronounciation and cadence of some of the MLK speeches, and I find that vaguely disturbing.

    Who is he targeting with the “they” said “we” couldn’t do this part of his speeches? Who are “they” and who are “we?” Are “they” related to “some” or what?

    I don’t understand those who say this is a humble man – all I get when I hear these speeches is the underlying belief that he believes himself to be the best parts of JFK, MLK and Jesus all rolled into one, and I wish he would leave the revival meeting elements behind.

    Yes, yes – I know it was a victory speech and he was entitled to revel in the win. And I realize that it was grating on my ears because I was pulling for the man who stood no chance, and I’m bummed about it.

    I think it’s important that, in a race where the person who was always expected to win did win, people not be sucked into the false conclusion that somehow it was a victory over any particular brand of politics. The race was never as ugly as it could have been – and whatever ugliness the media reported seemed to me to have been manufactured out of convoluted innuendo and conclusions based on pre-conceived notions.

    Well, enough. As my dad used to tell us when we were kids and feeling sorry for ourselves, maybe I just need to go out in the back yard and eat worms.

  • The Primary in Sc is a pimple on the ass of the US Primary process, Get over it.
    Let’s get past Feb the 5th and then talk. After tonight Obama starts to run out of supporters and he will have to start talking process instead of prose. We’ve got a long way to go and , at my age, I’m supremely happy we have to bitch over our candidates. Whatever our outcome, we know we have to be prepared for the Repubs or have you forgotten?

  • As late as one month ago, Hillary was up in the polls in SC, and had a 20 point lead over Obama among African Americans. I’d say his win tonight wildly exceeded all expectations, and it is not correct to suggest this was no surprise.

    I am very angry at Bill Clinton, but I’m even more annoyed at right wing commentators who bring up the supposed racial divide in the Democratic party. I mean, I don’t remember ever seeing the Republican SC vote last weekend broken down among racial lines. Who did better among African American, Huckabee or Romney? Why don’t the talking heads ever point out that Republicans don’t have any black support over which to fight? That seems sort of relevant.

  • Obama won a plurality of whites under 40, and a flat-out majority of whites under 30. Wonder how the First Attack Dog would spin that one. Perhaps this is the difference between the 8-10 point victory that most projected and the 28-point landslide that resulted.

    And Anne, with Obama, I get that you don’t like him–evidently you really don’t like him. What I don’t get is how you think he’s a bigger egotist than Edwards–whom I do like, but who is advancing himself as a presidential candidate despite less experience in public life than either of his opponents, on an agenda that’s significantly different from the one he championed for most of that short tenure in public life. And he presents himself as a “biography candidate” to a much, much greater extent than Obama does. How does he compare favorably?

  • It sounds like the plot of a novel, but I believe the break will come – one way or the other – when one candidate or the other persuades John Edwards to be his or her running mate, and to throw his votes to them. He’s still polling respectably for a regular guy who is in an election featuring two historic candidates, but I don’t think anyone believes he can be president. He’d be a good one, I think, but he’d be a good vice-president, too, and he still commands more than enough votes to turn the tide.

  • From TPM:

    Clinton campaign strategists denied any intentional effort to stir the racial debate. But they said they believe the fallout has had the effect of branding Obama as “the black candidate,” a tag that could hurt him outside the South.

    Hill and Billary, the G.W. Bush of the Democratic Party.

    Every time those two worthless scum get on an airplane, the only thing that keeps me from praying for engine failure on takeoff and a ball of fire at the end of the runway is the thought of the innocent aircrew.

    John F. Kennedy – assassinated
    Martin Luther King – assassinated
    Robert F. Kennedy – assassinated

    Bill Clinton – still walking around

    There is no justice.

  • Planting code words into an off-the-cuff remark. Bill, Bill, Bill, you have really disappointed me. I’m shocked, appalled…I used to love Bill Clinton. I’m so disillusioned. I can’t believe he would insult our intelligence by saying that. He seems like a totally different person to me now. Has he always been this much of a…jerk?

  • So willing to make something out of nothing. Everytime a Clinton opens their mouth you make something out of it. Really was this worth mentioning? Started off with Clinton saying “…that’s bait too..” You didn’t bother to mention this in your quote. Didn’t you think the question would be upsetting to Clinton and was pretty insulting to ask? I don’t even support Clinton but I’m noticing a definite Clinton bias where you seem to be giving weight to the most petty of statements and questions that would normally be below your concern.

    “What is it about Obama that it takes two of you to defeat him”??? I mean really. The question itself is an insult aimed to elicit a negative response. How would you have answered it?

  • I’ll cast a vote for making mountains out of molehills – except that it’s not even a molehill.

    If you asked me if being female has something to do with supporting Hillary I’d say there’s absolutely no doubt about it.

    I suspect if you asked a black person if being black had something to do with supporting Obama s/he would say of course.

    In what universe is that racism?

    I echo the person above who said get a grip. If you want to state reasons that you don’t like either Clinton fine, but don’t look for reasons that don’t exist.

  • I just went to my e-mail and put all e-mail from Hillary in my spam file. Felt good.

    As a “yellow dog Democrat” (i.e., someone who votes for a “yellow dog” before they’d vote for a non-Democrat) I’ll be taking our a write-in ballot in November and writing in “Yellow Dog” before I vote for Hill&Billary. I suggest everyone else who is a Real Democrat do the same.

    Hill Clinton is proof of where the term “cracker” came from: originally it meant “cracking trader”, as in someone who would say or do anything to make a sale, Caveat Emptor, and referred to the Scotch-Irish (of which I am a member as is Hill). It wasn’t racist, but it wasn’t a term of respect either.

    As for Billary, when Martin Luther King was campaigning for civil rights, she was a “Goldwater Girl,” dedicated to opposing that. So surprise surprise she would respond here as she has – tigers don’t change stripes.

    Plus ca change….

  • bjobotts, do you really think it is a mitigating factor that Bill called out the question as “bait”, and then took the bait and said something stupid? Sure, that part of the quote should have been included, but it only makes him look even more out of control and vindictive.

    I really, really liked the Clinton presidencies, and I had a huge amount of respect for the man. But he seems to have descended into self parody and utter sliminess. It’s very depressing.

  • If I recall correctly, Jesse Jackson was never more than a marginal candidate for the Democratic nomination. He may have won South Carolina two times, but I daresay he did not do so after winning Iowa and making a very close race in New Hampshire. I think the Big Dog was attempting to marginalize Obama and his accomplishments by referencing Jackson. To me he came off looking churlish and devoid of grace. But, of course, that’s just me.

    I read CB’s post after listening to Hillary’s campaign event in Tennesee. I was impressed with her back and forth with the crowd there. I was only listening and not watching her. But, she came through to me as thoughtful, committed, and she did a did a good job telling the story of what motivates her. It was substantive enough but not too wonky, and she sprinkled in annecdotal information that made her a more human and humane figure in my eyes.

    I think she is capable of winning on the merits, but she – or someone advising her – does not seem to believe that. CB’s post reminds me (yet again) that she comes with Bill attached to her past and her present, and her possible future in the White House. I tend to view the Clinton years as positive on balance but filled with promise foregone. As I’ve said before, I think she will be fighting him for the limelight every step of the way and that will not be a good thing.

  • Anne,

    Unless I’ve missed something, Obama was predicted to win SC all along, wasn’t he? And by a fair margin. So, why all the hoopla over that fact that the numbers turned out as expected?

    You are missing something. Obama was not predicted to win SC all along. Clinton had a huge lead late in 2007 which evaporated rather rapidly. On top of this Twenty percent of South Carolina Democrats made their decision in the last three days and 51 percent of them chose Obama, while only 21 percent picked Clinton. Much of this movement in the last few days is being attributed to a backlash against the Clinton smear campaign.

    http://liberalvaluesblog.com/?p=2789

  • dajafi – it’s late and I’m too tired to give you chapter and verse on my feelings about Obama, but you’re right – I don’t like him. And I don’t mean “him” in the personal sense, but “him” in the candidate sense.

    I realize that if you made a chart on these three candidates, Edwards would come up short in terms of his experience in public life – that’s true. In terms of Senate experience, Clinton leads, with one full term and part of another under her belt, Edwards is second with one full term, and Obama is third, with only 3 years. Prior to being elected to the Senate, only Obama has prior legislative experience, in Illinois.

    I guess, for me, the key is not so much experience, but message. I’ve said before that after 7 years of watching too many Democrats roll over and play dead when faced with Republican bullies, I am ready for someone with some spine. With Clinton and Obama, I feel calculation and triangulation, and am constantly wondering who it is they are really talking to. Sometimes when I hear Obama speak, I want to look over my shoulder to see who it is he is really trying to reach. I get that the more people who can agree on an issue, the better the chances of some movement, but I’m someone who thinks what we as Democrats have to offer is pretty damn good, and I’d like to see Obama selling that, as opposed to seeming to be willing to chuck some of it over the side in order to make the sale to the Republicans and independents.

    I have my issues with Clinton, too. And I would like to see less of Bill – a lot less. As smart as she is, as much of a grasp of information as she has, she will spend too much of her time bogged down in the morass that will always dog her – and I think we have too much to address and too much to do to waste time on that.

    Argh.

    Time for bed.

  • My mom is almost the archetypical Hillary Clinton supporter–62 years old, key on choice issues, thought Bill Clinton was a superb president, sees little substance in Obama. And even she said to me this afternoon that she’s very disappointed with the former president’s remarks, and that he’s a “dirty politician.”

    Their campaign is going to have to figure out how to emphasize his positives and silence his attack instincts. As I wrote in another thread, I agree with TuiMei @ 37 that Clinton is actually appealing, at least to those of us who revere wonkery, when she sticks to policy substance. There’s a political persona to be cultivated in that: the humble, hard-working manager who provides a steady hand and a fully engaged mind. But I don’t think she can make that case with the endlessly narcissistic Big Dog barking for the cameras.

  • ***Tom Cleaver*** “…Every time those two worthless scum…:” Foaming at the mouth are we? How pathetic to resort to republican tactics rather than stick to the issues. You accomplish nothing when you become a bulging eyed, red-face frothing hate filled lunatic.

    Trying to pretend that many in America have not already tagged Obama as the “Black candidate” or the “Blackman’s candidate” is as naive as saying Hillary is not the woman candidate or the “woman’s candidate. Are you one of those so filled with hate already that you just look for people to dump it on. Stop with the name calling, get a grip or follow Cheney’s advice. You can do better than calling our candidates “scum” and praying for their “assassination”.

    Dajafi…Edwards claims he’s come to recognize what we are up against, sees the urgency of dealing with it and is sincere in taking this corporatism on. I think what Anne resents is the Obama appeasement. He doesn’t seem like he has the stomach to take these lobbyists on or knows what the fight entails in saying no to them. Who is “we” or “they”, because we or they haven’t been able to get “them” to do much of anything we wanted so far. Obama seems to be for inviting the lynch mob to the table to discuss how to stop the hangings. To restore our nation it has become necessary to prevent those who have been destroying from continuing their obstructionism or standing in the way of a new direction. They will not move unless they are moved. Obama is painting a movie production script like scenario which sounds great and looks pretty but lacks any reality. It’s a great cause for concern and his speeches fail beyond the pretty platitudes to state what he plans to do. With Edwards you know what he will do…directly deal with reality…deal with what is rather than what we hope will be.

  • The “New Politics” of Obama supporters:

    John F. Kennedy – assassinated
    Martin Luther King – assassinated
    Robert F. Kennedy – assassinated

    Bill Clinton – still walking around

    There is no justice.

  • “The Clintons will keep trying to portray the South Carolina victory as a black v. white battle, but it is far from clear that voters in the Super Tuesday states will fall for this type of slime.”

    I think Obama himself said it best, it’s not about black vs white, it’s about the past vs. the future.

    Memekiller, please do not tar all Obama supporters with one brush. One more example of the old politics of which so many of us are tired. I’ve become an Obama supporter slowly but surely because he represents a new way of doing business. For those who wonder who he’s trying to talk to, I believe the answer is all of us. All Americans. And I do wish that all Obama supporters would try to follow his example and be respectful of the other candidates (in a public forum, at least), but that’s probably a pipe dream. We’ve had too many years of automatically demonizing anyone we don’t agree with. I’m as guilty as anyone there. I’m trying.

    Unfortunately, I’ve gone from feeling like I could vote for Hillary if I had to, even though she wouldn’t be my first choice (which was originally Edwards), to feeling that I would have some serious regrets if I were to vote for her. The attacks her campaign have launched disgust me. While I was happy to vote for Bill both times, I agree with those who have said that his actions are undignified and unwise. I sincerely hope these tactics fail. Obama/Edwards remains my absolute dream ticket.

    Please keep in mind, since I live in Oregon and won’t be voting until late spring, my opinions probably don’t matter. Stupid broken primary system. 😉

  • The “New Politics” of Obama supporters:

    Memekiller, you are willing to be painted with the stupidest crap that any Clinton supporter says, right?

    Most of us realize that there are idiots and embarrassing people who support each of the candidates, and that it’s incredibly cheesy to claim that any candidate is responsible for the excesses of their worst supporters. But if you don’t see that and think that all Obama supporters buy into anything that any one of them says, you’d better be prepared to believe the worst of yourself based on what some random internet Clinton supporter says.

  • Bill Clinton is increasingly reminding me of the old SNL skit where Heather Locklear plays a QVC-style spokeswoman who repeatedly makes remarks like, “kikes will really like…” or “and spics can use it for …”. As the telephones ring off the hook with complaints, her co-host (Mike Myers) finds it harder to smile, but she just keeps smiling, completely oblivious to others’ reactions.

    Actually, I’m feeling quite chilled out already.

  • I’m waiting to see how Billary Clinton’s minstrel show plays on Super Tuesday and beyond.

    I hope they have their asses handed to them.

    Obama/Edwards in ’08!

  • Clinton’s campaign managers should send Bill to a far away country for a while. He has become a veritable caricature of himself. Definitely not the old Bill anymore. Ah age & disease it gets us all.

    #35 Tom: Was Hillary really a ” Goldwater Girl” ????!!!!

    #25 Anne: I thought I was the only one who noticed Obama’s lapse into preacher cadance. (it isn’t only MLK) I think it is an unconscious response to the setting…and I have done it myself upon occasions.

    Edwards…is still the best candidate in my eyes. I think a lot of people are forgetting the issues and have become wrapped up in some candidate ideology where critical thinking is suspended.

  • BJC/HRC: “We’re not racists! We just play them on TV!”

    Love to see that they care about power so much. Makes me really really certain that they won’t abuse power while in the WH.

  • Tom and I are both regulars, and Tom’s comments tend to be some of the best, but I have to say, they are representative of the tone with which comments regarding Hillary for the past few days, which kick me into the knee-jerk defense of the Clinton’s I developed in the 90’s. It’s what keeps sending me back in the Hillary camp.

  • ***BJC/HRC: “We’re not racists! We just play them on TV!”***

    Great. Now we get “All in the Family”—and they both want to be Archie Bunker. I wonder—how long until they finally figure out that Edith’s not getting them a beer….

  • memekiller, even I get the urge to relapse to ’90s-era Clinton defending. Roger Stone’s “Citizens United” group did it to me last week; the media’s premature dancing on Hillary’s political grave nudged me in that direction a few weeks earlier.

    But the campaign is about us, not the Clintons (or Obama). I think highly of Tom as an activist and a writer, but he was over the line with his comment. The best thing would be to put it behind us and, for all of us, try to make the positive case for our chosen candidates without tearing down the others.

  • The Clintons have adopted and modified the Nixon/Republican “Southern Strategy” for their own purposes. They now have their own “Western Strategy” specifically applied to drive a wedge between Hispanic and Black voters (primarily in California) for their benefit.

    Words can’t describe the depths of my digust for the tactics being employed by Bill and Hillary Clinton–two people who, up until recently, I had admired.

  • Anybody that raises their arms to the sky and does the “jesus” thingy needs to have THAT behavior questioned. But no…. nit picking comments from a former President (who kept peace and balanced our budget) is the cowardly thing to do. That should speak for itself. And, Hillary will also do a great job as President because she states the FACTS even if some folks don’t like it.
    Obviously Obama doesn’t present himself as a person commited to his faith since he has to fire accusations or excuses and do his dramatic “jesus” presentation to gain popularity among those who consider themselves righteous with their superstitious belief in fables. You know what I mean about judging, don’t ya? (I can judge, though, cause I don’t believe in fairy tales. haha)
    So, because of Obama’s behavior, anyone with good old common sense will realize that Mr. O. would not be able to commit to being a good President. I am so grateful that we have a candidate like Hillary Clinton who is not riding towards the Presidency on a cloak of superstitious religious beliefs. I liked the honesty of Goldwater. And, I would vote for any candidate that stated, “Separation of church and state is what I believe!!!!!” Yep, that would be the candidate for me as long as it were the truth and not a dramatic event. What? No Santa Claus?????

  • I think his next book should be called “From Democratic Darling to Loathsome Pariah” And to think I used to love this guy…

  • I am outraged by this story. I saw the ORGINAL clip of the reporters question. He FIRST asked Bill whether Obama could win as a black candidate…then added the second part of the question. The media CUT the first part, then accused Bill of injecting ‘race’ (with Jesse Jackson) into this response. These tactics are increasingly alarming to me and show that the media is not only deliberately trying to “spin” again Bill Clinton, they are stealing the election from the American people. People need to stand up to this — it is WRONG!

  • Oh, please. Stop the hyperbole about what Bill said, which was, “Obama ran a fine campaign.” So far all the comments I have heard on this subject are basically pure nonsense. I am an Edwards supporter, so I am not trying to cover for the Clintons.

  • I actually think what we are watching on the video here is altogether more prosaic and human than you could tell from the comments here.

    President Clinton is a consummate politician. He knows what’s going on and he does not like it in the least.

    Here, we’re arguing over the surprising 30 point win by Obama in S.C. — and we’re only surprised, remember, because we’ve pinned our expectations on polls.

    Mr. Clinton is not looking at that and those are not his expectations.

    Looking at Feb. 5, Sen. Clinton is leading by double digits in the “big” states and many of the smaller states and the expectations will be that she will have some good wins on Feb. 5 and may sweep in some places even though they see an “expected” loss in Sen. Obama’s home state of Illinois. We’ll forget for a moment that Hillary’s also from Chicago since she is now a New Yorker.

    That’s not the reality. The reality — objective now, I’m talking about what’s going on in the head of a hard-nosed political scientist/artist/genius — is that Hillary was over 45% in those states only last December while Obama was down around 20%. Naturally, as people paid more attention, the gap narrowed as Obama’s name identification improved.

    Then, Gore dropped out definitively and a lot of those highly motivated political fanboys and girls were somewhat estranged from the Clintons by the 2000 race, rightly or wrongly, and some of that juice went to Obama (some, of course, to Edwards and HRC, but the numbers favored Barack).

    Obama, a community organizer in Chicago, had been building his own “ground game” organization in Iowa, mostly fueled by his recent Senate campaign in neighboring Illinois. He worked his butt off. That’s not an opinion, it’s just a darn fact and you can ask anyone in any of the campaigns.

    Obama surprised himself and everyone else in Iowa because the polls simply are not as effective and powerful as predictors in caucus situations. The expectations game was somewhat quiet, but had favored the “establishment” Clinton and her “establishment” union/teachers/party regular caucus turnout efforts.

    His trendlines went straight north and have not stopped.

    Sen. Clinton’s polling numbers consistently run in the 40% range, a clear frontrunning leader nationwide and stable there for the entire year of 2007.

    Jumping over N.H., NV, Michigan and S.C., Sen. Clinton’s polling remains around 40% and Obama is in the 30% range and STILL RISING. Extrapolating the lines, they intersect and Obama goes ahead UNLESS there is an event that puts Sen. Clinton over 50% or changes the trajectory of Obama.

    In the large states for which we have polling, Sen. Clinton has gone from having a 30% lead to having a 15% or less lead. Not only that, but the “undecided” columns have been awash — more than 15% have yet to pay close attention and/or have not made a decision. Much of the support for the candidates is “soft” as of the polling in December and there’s scant new data in January for some of the states, but you can bet President Clinton has the best information available.

    Mr. Clinton realizes the initial expectations will be that Sen. Clinton will do extraordinarily well on Feb. 5. But, he also knows that there is very little that can be done to keep that gap between Sen. Clinton and Obama from narrowing.

    Whether Sen. Clinton goes positive or negative, Obama television ads and campaigning will bring the two closer, considering the current trend lines and the numbers of undecided. This may well look like a “tidal wave” of “momentum” to the press.

    The Clinton campaign is being run very competently and it is polished, practiced and well-funded. They are doing everything “right.”

    Can you imagine how frustrating it is personally for this man? When you are playing the game and you know you’re a really good player and you’re doing everything “right” and you still face losing? It doesn’t seem right and fair. As competitive as this man is in his own right, everyone who is married knows how your emotions can get to the surface when it’s your spouse.

    One last human note. These people are tired beyond the comprehension of most of us. This is a guy who just had heart surgery not all that long ago and I’ll bet he’s beat up physically from the lack of sleep, the bad food, the travel and the energy it takes to always be “on.” Most of us couldn’t do it, physically do it.

    Right or wrong, this guy feels picked on, frustrated, betrayed and he very much does not like to lose. I’ve thought for more than a week now that the former president was lashing out in bitterness at the Fates as much as anything or anyone else. I feel a little sorry for him, actually, and if you consider how far the mighty can fall and how horrible it must feel to be him, I think it’s best to do as Obama himself has done and just let it go as one more case of an old guy who just doesn’t “get it.”

    blogblah

  • HERE IS A LITTLE QUESTION I HAVE THAT I CAN’T FIND THE ANSWER TO?

    I have been seeing alot of commercials with Sen. Clinton where she talks about her new plan to fix the foreclosure mess– that is, freezing interest rates, etc. I absolutely think something needs to be done and, of course, only democrats can solve the problem. The republicans answer would probably be to bomb the banks….

    Anyway, thinking as lawyers do, I just cant understand how Hillary’s plan would be Constitutional.

    In order to “freeze interest rates for five years” (contrary to the language of the lawful contracts that borrowers signed), I assume Sen. Clinton would seemingly propose some new law to be passed in Congress. (It would be scary to think any President could alter the terms of private contracts with an Executive Order….[don’t give Bush any ideas])

    As I see it, the problem for Sen. Clinton is that U.S. Constitution Article 1, Section 8, gives the federal government only limited powers and by my reading, rewriting the terms of private contracts is not one of those powers. Indeed, even for the states which have far greater power in regulating contract law, the U.S. Constitution (Article 1, Section 10) states that “No State shall . . . pass any law . . . impairing the obligation of Contracts.” Sen. Clinton’s plan to wholesale freeze interest rates for five years, ex post facto, and contrary to the terms of lawful contracts, seems to me to be a power the federal government does not have.

    In any event, Sen Clinton’s plan would violate the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution which provides, in part, “No person shall . . . be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.” Rewriting seemingly millions of loan agreements, would clearly deprive the lenders with their contract rights without “notice and an opportunity to be heard.”

    Am I missing something here? Can anyone tell me how Sen. Clinton’s plan would pass legal muster?

  • It just goes to show how foolish some people are when they make such accusations without knowing the full story.

    The first part of the question was whether or not Barack Obama could make it as a black candidate.

    Oh wait I thought Bill interjected race into the discussion?

    You people should feel like idiots.

    • Comments are closed.