Bill Clinton yesterday in South Carolina:
"Jesse Jackson won South Carolina in '84 and '88. Jackson ran a good campaign. And Obama ran a good campaign here."
ABC's Jake Tapper is aghast that the "Clintons are running a race-baiting campaign." But what is actually wrong with Bill's statement? Isn't pointing out that Jackson -- who had much less broad appeal than Obama -- winning South Carolina twice mean that it's absolutely no surprise that Obama won so big yesterday? But Tapper doesn't stop there:
An African-American pal of mine writes me the following tonight, which I share because too many of those commenting on this all are melanin-deprived.He writes: "Of all the things Bill Clinton has said, that comparison to Jesse Jackson is the most obvious -- and odious -- race baiting that he's done."
"I actually thought some of the other examples have been overblown. My feeling has been that the man is working hard for his wife, who cares if he's allowed himself a little hyperbole. It's the least he could do."
"But this Jesse comment takes the cake and is going to p--- a lot of people off. Hillary got pasted, and they can't take it, so they do their best to diminish Obama's victory. They know they can do this, because the national press corps will let him get away with it. . ."
"Let him get away with it"? This is all they're covering! But let's examine Tapper's friend's claims. He states that this recent [Bill] Clinton comment "takes the cake" ... but again, why, exactly? Because he brings up a polarizing figure like Jesse Jackson. But as noted, Jackson won S.C. not once but twice. Why is this so anathema to bring forth? It was Democrats in the first place that gave Jackson such a forum, then. And it was Democrats that never, ever challenged Jackson on many of his polarizing statements and views. (Actually, Bill Clinton was one of the rare few who did, in that "Sistah Souljah" moment.)
As I mentioned previously, I'd almost feel sorry for Clinton, but it is his own party that has perfected the use of race and perceived racial animus (otherwise known as "overly acute racial sensitivity") to use against opponents. And now its eating their own.
Sadly, the Democrat primary has devolved into a finger pointing exercise where everything Obama says is sexist and everything Team Clinton says is racially charged. I'm as cynical as the next guy but I think Bubba's point was that winning SC does not guarantee success in the general election. That the chattering classes are so worked up about it and somehow draw some sort of racial inference tells me they think Jackson is some sort of buffoon. Draw from that what you will.
Posted by: Duffy at January 28, 2008 08:58 AMduffy said it first.
I infer Bill's statement to mean, "look Jackson won SC and someone else won the nomination.....
This was in response to charged questions aaking if losing SC meant losing nationwide.....
Too much is being read into that remark.
Jesse may appear a buffoon today, but he was on fire in 84 and 88. His message would have direct appeal to Democrats of South Carolina, probably ha higher majority of which were black then, than are now.
Meaning there are a lot more democrats who are not black in South Carolina now, then there were then.
Posted by: kavips at February 9, 2008 05:07 AM