Jesse Jackson Not Upset About Bill's Obama-Jackson Comment
That's what The New York Times is now reporting.
“I don’t read anything negative into Clinton’s observation," the paper quotes Jackson, an Obama supporter, as saying.
“Bill has done so much for race relations and inclusion, I would tend not to read a negative scenario into his comments," Jackson is also quoted as saying. Jackson tells the paper he sees Bill's remarks as a recognition of his own success in the state.
But the paper also reports that Jackson privately appealed to both Bill and Obama to take the campaign “to a higher ground.”
And the Times also answers a key question that many have been asking by reporting that all available evidence suggests that Bill was the first person in the entire exchange with reporters to mention Jesse.
Full story here.
Comments (61)
Jeremy wrote on January 28, 2008 11:44 AM:I don't think that it was particularly negative either, but it did show an outmoded point of view. Obama did better among white voters than expected, and would likely have beat Hillary in that demographic, like he beat her in all others, if not for Edwards favored-son presence in the race. Obama won Iowa, an overwhelmingly white state. He was darn close in NH and might have won their if not for the lying fliers sent out by the Hillary campaign about his record on choice. I think there are very significant differences between his candidacy and Jesse Jackson's, between his qualities as a candidate and Jackson's, and between the country now vs then.
example wrote on January 28, 2008 11:50 AM:Well, if I were Jessy Jackson, I'd be happy to be compared to Obama too. The problem is that the only reason BC brought it up was because Obama was African American.
But look at 2004. Howard Dean did really well with black voters (I don't remember if he actually won with them in SC, since that was after his "scream") but he kicked the crap out of Al Sharpton among black voters. He also won the DC primary, even though he didn't campaign there while Sharpton did.
Michael A wrote on January 28, 2008 11:54 AM:At this point, I wish the right-wing media would drop this. It is totally playing into the hands of mr. bill's candidacy for a third term. Just drop it.
Keith wrote on January 28, 2008 11:57 AM:Why would Jesse Jackson be upset about getting press? Seriously, Clinton, in a way, validated Jackson once again with the comment. So let's not take this as evidence of anything other than Jesse Jackson getting his ego stroked while Clinton gets a dig in on Obama.
Let's just move on shall we?
Liam wrote on January 28, 2008 11:58 AM:Again: Senator Obama is not just African American, his Mother was a White women, so stop with all the race talk.
Do not overlook the fact that Jesse Jackson was not a supporter of Senator Obama. Jesse and most of the old guard know that their gravy train would be derailed if Senator Obama became the nominee of the party.
Also, do not forget that when the Monica scandal broke, Jesse Jackson went to to the White House to pray with Bill Clinton, while all the time Jesse had his own pregnant mistress at hand.
Birds of a Feather and all that. Bill and Jesse.
Mike wrote on January 28, 2008 12:02 PM:They've clearly made the decision to ignore Bill's race-baiting comments.
That's probably the best decision. Any negative response they make toward it would be spun by the Clinton campaign as them playing the race card.
That's what the Clinton campaign wants. Obama just wants to put this stuff behind him and talk about the issues that matter.
KyleXY wrote on January 28, 2008 12:03 PM:This overreaction by the media about race is going to kill Obama with white voters.
Josh and his politically correct outrage. Go get a Starbucks.
KyleXY, if you're so put out by Marshall's viewpoints why do you come to this site? Weird.
RE: the item...that's all well and good, but who the hell cares what Jesse thinks about this, really? What Jesse thinks about the "comparison" is irrelevant. What matters is what Bill Clinton's continued race-baiting will do to the presidential campaign.
benjoya wrote on January 28, 2008 12:07 PM:This overreaction by the media about race is going to kill Obama with white voters.
well that was the plan. since obama's not taking the bait, it might not work out that way. obama teased the big dog into a meltdown, giving him a big win this week. his kung fu is strong.
Jay wrote on January 28, 2008 12:08 PM:"This overreaction by the media about race is going to kill Obama with white voters."
Thats wishful thinking on your part..
bob wrote on January 28, 2008 12:08 PM:Check the BBC. I heard an interview with Jesse Jackson this morning.
rachelrachel wrote on January 28, 2008 12:09 PM:example:
But look at 2004. Howard Dean did really well with black voters (I don't remember if he actually won with them in SC, since that was after his "scream") but he kicked the crap out of Al Sharpton among black voters.
What I seem to remember was that Dean's voters were, compared to the Democratic party as a whole, more white, more affluent, more likely to identify as liberal or very liberal, and less religious. He ended up with only about six percent of the vote, so it's hard to say that he did well with any important segment of the electorate.
Hawke wrote on January 28, 2008 12:10 PM:Who's the Real Racist?
From a Rezko arrest blog;
Obama uses the words of super Muslim and racist Malcolm X in SC.
"They're trying to bamboozle you. It's the same old okie-doke. Y'all know about okie doke, right?... They try to bamboozle you. Hoodwink ya. Try to hoodwink ya.”
-- Barack Obama in a speech January 24, 2008 (a video of the speech is on-line through Google)
"You've been hoodwinked. You've been had. You've been took. You've been led astray, led amok. You’ve been bamboozled." (Malcolm X)
If any other candidate gave a speech that included the same phrases used to incite whites against blacks, he/she would be berated by the Obama campaign and the media as a racist and the world would come to end.
Hawke wrote on January 28, 2008 12:11 PM:Who's the Real Racist?
From a Rezko arrest blog;
Obama uses the words of super Muslim and racist Malcolm X in SC.
"They're trying to bamboozle you. It's the same old okie-doke. Y'all know about okie doke, right?... They try to bamboozle you. Hoodwink ya. Try to hoodwink ya.”
-- Barack Obama in a speech January 24, 2008 (a video of the speech is on-line through Google)
"You've been hoodwinked. You've been had. You've been took. You've been led astray, led amok. You’ve been bamboozled." (Malcolm X)
If any other candidate gave a speech that included the same phrases used to incite whites against blacks, he/she would be berated by the Obama campaign and the media as a racist and the world would come to end.
rj wrote on January 28, 2008 12:11 PM:I agree with Michael A, but for a different reason. It's actually caused a backlash on the Clintons, which is a good thing for the election, I think, but bad longer-term for the Dems, and for the country. Pat Buchanan has been virtually drooling over all of this ("see? the Democrats are as racist as I am"), and he and other Republican concern trolls (Tucker, Peggy Noonan, and more) are working very hard to keep it going (I'd also argue that the media in fact got the whole race-ball rolling, though they certainly had help keeping it going). Whatever his reasons, I'm glad Jesse spoke out on this; we really need to get past it. (And yes, Bill needs to put a lid on it.)
Hawke, hillaryis44.org. It's simple, just post the link. If you want to play, go play there.
brad wrote on January 28, 2008 12:13 PM:Bill tried to put a darker coat of paint in the eyes of white voters on Obama. He failed. Lets all move on.
lombard wrote on January 28, 2008 12:14 PM:Good for Jackson. He knows that negatively interpreting a simple, off-the-cuff remark like this helps neither candidate.
Jackson knows what real negative comparisons are like. In 1988, Paul Simon's wife said that he made great speeches but so did Adolf Hitler. She apologized for that remark. An unfortunate characteristic of the current age is that Bill's relatively mild observations receive far more press and incite more furor than Mrs. Simon's comments did at the time.
In my view, the question is not whether Clinton's comment was negative. The question is: "What is your point Mr. Clinton?" Is it that African-Americans will always vote thier own candidate in a contest and this is an insignificant election? If this is in fact the point, then, what happended in the 2004 Al Sharpton run in S.C.? I think Edwards won! Clearly, President Clinton was trying to minimize the significance of the loss using the racial orgin of the votes as the aberration that led to Sen. Obama's huge victory. As Sen. Obama said in the ABC interview, he is viewing contemporary politics through a "different lens". He sees only black and white.
Jeremy wrote on January 28, 2008 12:15 PM:It's amazing. I thought Obama's supporters were supposed to be "Hillary haters", but it seems like thread after thread is subject to these divisive spam attacks.
Anonymous wrote on January 28, 2008 12:20 PM:DrumMajorforJustice wrote:
"Clearly, President Clinton was trying to minimize the significance of the loss using the racial orgin of the votes as the aberration that led to Sen. Obama's huge victory."
Yes, that is most likely the inference. Perhaps he was trying to minimize the loss to himself in his own dejected state.
Of course, this win was more than a racial pride win. But, to deny that race was not the major driving factor in the size of this victory is pure politically correct blindness.
Angry Vet wrote on January 28, 2008 12:21 PM:Oh no. BO is using the words of Malcolm X in his speeches. So what?
Malcolm X was a great American, shot dead (presumably) by his own people (Nation of Islam) after having a falling out with them. At least, I think that's how history played out.
Either way, the question isn't whether he used the words of a Muslim (which, in America, is not a bad thing; in fact, quite the opposite). Rather, the question is whether the words are true.
And, after looking at race relations in this country over the last 150 years (post slavery), I have to argue that they are true.
Trolls, just a note: The allegation that Obama would use Malcolm X's words in a speech is going to tilt me more TOWARDS him as a candidate, rather than away from him. You see, most college educated people look at Malcolm X as a true leader, rather than a threat.
I think most Americans, in a similar manner, look at these two as heroes as well:
http://www.theage.com.au/ffximage/2006/10/09/carlos_narrowweb__300x365,0.jpg
Racism as an issue in America must be transcended for us to move forward. End of story.
Critiquing Obama is spam attacks and we should go away but the Hillary Haters are a welcome addition?
Obama is in a bad place with white voters. This is not wishful thinking. He got an anemic 25% in SC and he is going to lose women again and working class Democrats.
Middle age and older white voters do not want to relive the race wars.
The truth isn't politically correct. It gets ignored until the results come in.
Tim wrote on January 28, 2008 12:24 PM:Bill Clinton is a racist.
I'm sorry to say but one does not play games with this, I learned that when I was six years old.
Karen Poole wrote on January 28, 2008 12:30 PM:Everytime any person especially the Clintons cite a fact directly or indirectly about Obama the blogs and the main media shout foul. This is actually the Clintons point Obama has a lot of baggage but is described in the light of the second coming of Christ. So what if Clinton remarked that JJ won SC in 84/88, it implies that JJ did not win the nomination because he won SC therefore Hillary is not conceding the nomination to Obama, it does not say that Obama will not win the nomination because he is black. This is something said in the above comments and the phony issue the media will run with to try to discredit Hillary. What question was asked to elicit this response from BC, a question with racial undertones? Who is playing the race card. Also, it is a lie that a near majority of caucasions voted for Obama in NH or in Neveda that why Obama lost in NH a majority white State. Is Hillary not suppose to get white or black votes? Be real this is a competition an one person can not have all of the vote regardless if you wish it so. If Obama or his supporters believe the Clintons are playing dirty politics wait the Republicians will bring up all the bones in his closet and there are many; how he used his State Senate seat to help friends and criminals, his name in the Rezko inditment, his ties with Rev. Wright his mentor, Rev. Wright's deep associations with Farrakhan, Obamas mother's marriage to a Muslim man and her remarriage to a muslim, His Kenya relatives who are muslim, his ignoring the slaughters occurring in his homeland and skeltons involving his wife and the law firm she worked and brought Obama into, his fraudulant fund raising and land deals, so many. The Democrats will surely not overcome theses obstacles an win the WH. If we were smart some of theses skeltons should be revealed to soften the later blow.
benjoya wrote on January 28, 2008 12:30 PM:yeah, obama only won iowa because he had the support of black iowans, all five of them.
now that they're putting the muzzle on the big dog, it seems clear who has the stronger kung fu, and it ain't what's-her-name, you know, bill's wife.
Critiquing Obama is spam attacks and we should go away but the Hillary Haters are a welcome addition?
No. You're obsessive attempt to stir racial resentment is spamming. Go ahead and criticize Obama, just keep the divisive crap out of it.
Lisa wrote on January 28, 2008 12:37 PM:I am very upset with the Clintons tactics. I voted for Bill twice. But I will not vote for his wife after this.
I was going to but I will now stay home
if she gets the nomination.
First, the clintons never cite facts. They are spinning distortions. Why don't you go and play at hillaryis44.org.
Second, I agree with disclosure to soften the blow later on. While your at hillaryis44.org, maybe you could suggest the following disclosures:
1. The clintons' white house papers. What are they trying to hide?
2. The donor lists for the clinton foundation and library. What are they trying to hide?
3. Any memos on the calculation of the fee for pardons. What are they trying to hide?
If we're going to have a third clinton term, don't you think this information should be out in the open?
Anonymous wrote on January 28, 2008 12:37 PM:The press as usual.
Michael A wrote on January 28, 2008 12:39 PM:Oops, the last post was for karen's benefit. Again, the website is hillaryis44.org, in case you forgot.
Jeremy wrote on January 28, 2008 12:40 PM:Karen Poole's post shows that Hillary and her supporters do not intend to overcome the divisive politics of the right. They intend to imitate it. All smear and fear. No one's buying the smears and I'm not afraid of the scarrrrry wingers. The politics of smear and fear might get them a %50+1 win if she gets the nomination. However, it is not a way to fundamentally change the trajectory in this country.
Greg DeLassus wrote on January 28, 2008 12:45 PM:Good for Jackson. He knows that negatively interpreting a simple, off-the-cuff remark like this helps neither candidate.
Indeed, well said. This whole nonsense about race-wars in the democratic primary serves no one especially well, except the Republicans. We would all do well to stop it, and Rev Jackson, Sen Obama and Sen Clinton are all to be commended for trying to do so.
Meanwhile, the idea that Sen Obama is hurting for white support is nonsense. 25% in SC is a perfectly respectable showing in a three way-race against a candidate who was born in that state. Meanwhile, Sen Obama got plenty of white voters to support him in IA and NH and this white man is proud to have spent the last few weeks canvassing for him in neighborhoods both white and black. KyleXY and his ilk are just trying to kick up enough dust to obscure the noonday sun, and I daresay that no one (not even those trotting out the same unconvincing tropes) are particularly fooled by such blather.
Whatever wrote on January 28, 2008 12:50 PM:Jeremy's post shows that the Obama supporters do not intend to avoid cry-baby whines of how unfair it all is.
SC is over, Obambi won his AA base. Hillary took a chunk of the AA vote, and Edwards took a chunk of the white vote.
Big Dawg came out to play and everyone was amused. Next stop Florida, where Obambi had taken the that he's only willing to respect the rights of voters when those voters are gonna vote for him. Otherwise, sorry Florida, you're SOOL. New politics, indeed.
Waaah, if Florida voters won't vote for me then their votes will just not count. That'll show them!
w2 wrote on January 28, 2008 12:55 PM:Did everyone get so worked up when the meme out of New Hampshire was the women voted for Clinton because she was a woman (she cried)?
I think not.
KyleXY wrote on January 28, 2008 12:03 PM:This overreaction by the media about race is going to kill Obama with white voters.
I agree. The longer this goes on, the more Obama becomes the "black candidate", the less his chances...
Do you how you can assess the effect of the "narrative" on the general perception out there, rather than in here among the pontificators? Look at the prediction markets. The INTRADE prediction market did not budge at all after Obama won SC. On the other hand consider, respectively, the big dip and big spike in Hillary's and Obama's market "values" after he won IA...
Those with the big bucks to invest in the outcome of this election still do not "buy" into the notion that Obama can win this thing. All the hype this time around just passed them by.
Jeremy wrote on January 28, 2008 1:11 PM:Whatever. I find it interesting that Hillary has to tout a state where there's no campaigning. We've certainly seen that in the states where there's an actual campaign Obama closes the name-recognition gap very quickly. He was losing in all four early primary/caucuses that count, but mounted huge comebacks. The trends are consistently that Obama wins voters over and Hillary loses them. He might have gone 3/4 if it hadn't been for the mailers that Hillary sent out lying about his record on choice. Heck, he might have been 4/4 if not for the "it's not illegal unless they tell you" tactics in Nevada.
Btw, no whining here. I thank Hillary for giving Obama the opportunity to demonstrate how adept he is at running against a negative candidate.
lombard wrote on January 28, 2008 1:20 PM:Greg DeLassus wrote on January 28, 2008 12:45 PM:
"Meanwhile, the idea that Sen Obama is hurting for white support is nonsense. 25% in SC is a perfectly respectable showing in a three way-race against a candidate who was born in that state."
Actually, I would say 25% is more than respectable. Viewed with the lens of historical context and the circumstances of this 3-way campaign, 25% is VERY GOOD.
If Senator Obama is negatively perceived as a "black candidate" (using the term we are hearing in the media accounts), that perception will not occur because of his lack of white support. The perception will occur because of consistent 80% + support among black voters. White voters who react negatively will do so because of feelings of reverse racism. Let's be honest, this feeling is prevalent in the white population. One can hardly go a month without hearing a few whites reveal this attitude even in these politically correct times.
rj wrote on January 28, 2008 1:20 PM:Greg DeLassus has it right.
w2, the initial meme out of NH was actually that white New England Dem voters must be racist; that's what the media, and especially the Republicans, want to keep pressing, and if we let them succeed we're pretty much done for.
Anonymous wrote on January 28, 2008 1:26 PM:Note that Obama called Jesse Jackson to whine... who is it that's playing games with racial politics again?
readytoblowagasket wrote on January 28, 2008 1:27 PM:What does it say that Obama "did better among white voters than expected"? It assumes Obama cannot take the majority white vote, and therefore is likely to lose the general because he can't get elected without the white vote.
But why the assumption? Because in reality, racism is an issue we can't seem to discuss openly and honestly in this country. We can't even identify it accurately, as demonstrated in these and other Obama vs. Clinton threads and commentary. Yet we all know racism exists, along with sexism, homophobia, and ageism. So how do we know this if we never talk about it? Could it be because we know how passive even "progressives" have been about the displaced and homeless black victims of Katrina, for one glaring example?
I think the Clintons are doing the entire Democratic Party a favor by testing the racism waters during the primaries. Better to test those waters among Democrats than have the Republicans test them later. Because if you think the Clintons are slick or slimy or underhanded or evil, you have a bad case of selective amnesia when it comes to Republicans. The Clintons will prove to be cute and cuddly teddy bears by comparison.
Peep wrote on January 28, 2008 1:38 PM:
Thanks finally we get to hear from the non wing nut liberal group of the Dem party.
I am an Obama supporter, and I do not think that Bill Clinton is a racist.
What I do find him to be is a cynical politician who will play any card in the deck in order to gain advantage. He always has been willing to set whites against blacks when he saw that was to his advantage. He wants whites to see Obama as only a candidate of black Americans. Guess who gets to draw from the huge non black majority.
This is not the first time Bill Clinton has played that card.
Go back and read about how he played the Sistah Soljah card against Jesse Jackson, in order to make sure that white voters stayed away from him.
Bill Clinton loves blacks when he needs their support, and he will throw them to the dogs if he thinks that will gain him an advantage. Racists are too full of hate to ever play that game.
In some ways the Bill Clintons of the world are worse than racists. At least with racists, the targets of their hatred always know where they stand. It is far worse when someone who has befriended you, turn around and feeds you the wolves.
Heretic wrote on January 28, 2008 1:56 PM:Another sad display of idolatry by the Obama supporters. Obama is just as corrupt as the Clintons. He just hasn't been around long enough in the national spotlight to have his dirty laundry aired yet. He may look good in GE matchups right now, but once hie "vetted" by the Repug smear machine, he is toast. Hillary survived the smears in her Senate campaign in '00 and came back to win massively in '06. This meme about who won;t vote for her is BS. I'd lay odds that indies and moderate repugs will come around for her (probably moreso than you whiny losers in this forum). Unless its McCain and then any Dem is gonna lose.
lombard wrote on January 28, 2008 1:57 PM:
Liam wrote:
"Go back and read about how he played the Sistah Soljah card against Jesse Jackson, in order to make sure that white voters stayed away from him."
I think your memory is either fuzzy or your information is second hand. The Sistah Soljah remarks had nothing to do with Jesse Jackson. Jackson was not running in 1992.
The vicious, incendiary remarks by Sistah Soljah were delivered in a time where LA was ripped apart and partially destroyed by widespread criminal behavior and a rapper like Ice T was profiting from songs like "Cop Killer." My recollection of the time is that many African Americans were relieved by the various condemnations of Sistah Soljah because they felt she was an embarrassment to them.
Spin it all you want to, but Bill Clinton is just cynical southern politician who is pro black when it suits him, and anti black when it suits him. Even George Wallace played that game, and played up to blacks in his later election runs.
Nick wrote on January 28, 2008 2:12 PM:It's time for you media sheep to knock it off with the race business. If JESSE JACKSON doesn't see racial overtones in Preident Clinton's comments, it is hard to see how the overtly white TPM and other MSM media types can.
The media needs to stop hyping race in this election and let a discussionof the issues rule the day.
Liam,
You really need to get over your over-emotional silliness. The racial polarization angle was played by the media wanting to inject additional drama into the contest well before the votes were counted and Mr. Clinton's dejected remarks of resignation.
Mr. Clinton is not trying to convince voters that Obama is ONLY a candidate for black voters. I haven't heard anyone doing that. The negative inferences for some white voters may come from the increasing appearances that Obama is shaping up to be the ONLY candidate chosen BY black voters.
Only black voters, by voting for someone else in greater numbers, can change that perception. I don't expect them to feel the need to do that but the feeling of many that Obama is a "black candidate" will persist as long as we have this type of distribution among black voters.
Anonymous wrote on January 28, 2008 2:21 PM:lombard wrote on January 28, 2008 2:15 PM:
"we have this type of distribution"
What we are you talking about? To borrow from Oscar Brown Jr.!
AJM wrote on January 28, 2008 3:05 PM:Huckabee won the majority of voters belonging to Evangelical Churches in Iowa. This was noted in the press as well as noting that Iowa had a larger percentage of Evangelical voters than was the case in most states. Nobody held that there was anything anti-Evangelical in noting this. And if a couple of decades down the line somebody discussing a then running Evangelical candidate notes that Huckabee did well with Evangelicals back in '08 there would be nothing anti-Evangelical about it.
Being Evangelical is a matter of choice but is is also a matter of shared experience. Gender and race are not matters of choice but they do entail shared experience. It is somewhat to be expected that you will be more likely to vote for a candidate who understands you on the basis of shared experience.
That said, whichever candidate is nominated needs to be able to get votes from groups currently more attracted to the other candidate. Unless Obama can get the votes of older white women who have been incensed with how he has dealt with Hillary he cannot win. Clinton needs to get at least the same support from black voters that her husband had if she is to win.
Mike:
That's probably the best decision. Any negative response they make toward it would be spun by the Clinton campaign as them playing the race card.
That's what the Clinton campaign wants.
Get over it, Mike. Both candidates want the racial politics to go away, because it hurts both of them. Hillary needs the support of black voters and liberal voters in the fall if she wins, and she definitely does not want this race issue on the table. And no matter how many times I hear Obama supporters spinning it the other way to justify THEIR candidate alone, it just ain't so.
wwjb wrote on January 28, 2008 3:58 PM:To anyone who has been paying any attention, the Jesse Jackson comment was dropped like clockwork, I could have set my damn watch by it. This whole subtle race-baiting campaign has been leading up to that point. The Clintons sacrificed SC by pushing away the black vote, but they hoped to spin the big black loss as a racial thing, and in the process paint Obama as "the black candidate", just like Jesse Jackson was, and sure enough, like clockwork, right after they get thumped in SC, Bill Clintons comes out and compared Obama to Jesse Jackson, totally without provocation. Clinton campaign strategists were at this same time saying that Obama being "the black candidate" now could hurt his chances in other states. They have been waiting for this moment, and they jumped on it, and it was predictable as hell and if you deny it, you either haven't been paying any attention, or you are a Clinton troll and you need to quit spreading their lies and tricks around.
The only problem, Barack got a quarter of the white vote, against two high profile white candidates, and John Edwards, that wasn't something Jesse Jackson ever did, he also didn't stomp his opponents by 27%, and he also wasn't going against the most well known Senator, and a former president. Jesse Jackson also didn't win almost pure white Iowa. Looking toward the future, Jesse Jackson wasn't even or ahead in Colorado, another state that is white as snow. The Jesse Jackson allusion is an illusion. It was a transparent attempt by the Clintons to set the race trap they have been baiting this whole time, and it failed, and even the media noticed this blatant attempt.
And Jesse Jackson is an idiot if he doesn't see what is going on. But I don't think he is an idiot, I think he feels threatened by Obama, because his candidacy will pretty much be the final chapter in his career as the wannabe voice of the black community. Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton are the old guard, and Obama is the future, I wouldn't expect them to embrace it. I wouldn't be surprised if they both endorsed Hillary just to keep Obama at bay, but that probably won't happen now that the Clintons have pissed off so many blacks.
Greg DeLassus wrote on January 28, 2008 4:31 PM:Bill Clintons comes out and compared Obama to Jesse Jackson, totally without provocation.
Are you reading what you write? "Compared Obama to Jesse Jackson, totally without provocation"?!? You make it sound like a comparison to Jackson is a bad thing. I like Jesse Jackson, and so do a lot of other democrats. Admittedly, Jackson's talents are nothing compared to Obama's, but the comparison to Jackson is hardly the sort of thing that requires "provocation." Be serious, do.
lombard wrote on January 28, 2008 4:51 PM:To wwjb:
What an utterly despicable post by another member of the "Hope and Unity" movement.
Clearly revealed are all of the usual arrogant, contemptuous, and paranoid remarks of the reflexive and unthinking fanatic. I don't want to waste much time on your drivel, but I will highlight a couple of remarks.
"And Jesse Jackson is an idiot if he doesn't see what is going on. But I don't think he is an idiot, I think he feels threatened by Obama, because his candidacy will pretty much be the final chapter in his career as the wannabe voice of the black community."
What a lovely example of generational disrespect and dismissal. You obviously don't remember Jackson's 1988 campaign and how so many of us were moved by him. And I guess prior efforts on behalf of civil rights mean nothing to someone who spits on the past. You obviously don't remember some other things either like Jackson's efforts in negotiating release of Americans in hostile hands.
"...and if you deny it, you either haven't been paying any attention, or you are a Clinton troll and you need to quit spreading their lies and tricks around."
I see. So all of us who refuse to believe that the Clintons are able to orchestrate all of this through some omnipotent diabolical genius have been elevated beyond the level of fools, idiots, and infidels. We are now Clinton operatives or trolls.
If the Clintons really were able to direct media and the American people so easily, I really do think everyone else (in both parties) should just drop and give Senator Clinton the presidency now. We'll have the world in the palm of our hands in no time!
If you really want to see a "troll" just look in the mirror.
lombard wrote on January 28, 2008 4:55 PM:Greg DeLassus:
"I like Jesse Jackson, and so do a lot of other democrats."
Yes, count me as another one. I volunteered for his campaign in 1988. And thanks for again taking the initiative to discipline one of the egregious supporters on your side.
Desider wrote on January 28, 2008 5:18 PM:
Jesse Jackson Jr. cuts ad for Barack Obama
By Mike Dorning
Barack Obama began airing radio ads in South Carolina today featuring Chicago Congressman Jesse Jackson Jr., son of the prominent civil rights leader the Rev. Jesse Jackson.
The senior Jackson won the South Carolina Democratic primary during his 1988 campaign for president, a victory the younger Jackson recalled in the ad, which is airing on gospel and R&B stations with a predominantly African-American audience.
“Once, South Carolina voted for my father, and sent a strong message to the nation,” the younger Jackson said. “Next year, you can send more than a message. You can launch a President.”
The advertising campaign comes a month after Jackson's father criticized Obama for "acting like he's white" because the Illinois senator did not speak more aggressively in the racially charged "Jena 6" case. The elder Jackson, who is supporting Obama, later said the remark was taken out of context.
African-Americans are a crucial demographic group in the South Carolina primary, a key early contest in the presidential nomination. They comprised about half the electorate in the Democratic presidential primary in 2004.
The younger Jackson lauded Obama for legislation he passed in the Illinois state senate combating racial profiling and for seeking to counter "the railroading of the poor in the justice system."
Though Jackson did not mention front-runner Hillary Clinton in the ad, he appeared to suggest Obama would better represent the interests of blacks.
"A lot of politicians call themselves our friends," Jackson said.
"But Obama has a heart that beats for our community. And he’s dedicated his life to the struggle," added Jackson, who cited Obama's work as a community organizer on Chicago's South Side and as an attorney working on voting rights cases.
http://www.swamppolitics.com/news/politics/blog/2007/10/jesse_jackson_jr_cuts_ad_for_b.html
I'm still trying to figure out what the issue is that is winning Mr. Obama 90% of the black vote. Blacks aren't voting for him because he's black, but why are they voting for him in such large numbers? I can't find the issue on which he differs from Mrs. Clinton that is so important to blacks that they almost unanimously support him on it. In 1988, Jesse Jackson ran against the Reagan/Bush economy that was so destructive to Blacks while Dukakis and Gore didn't, so it's understandable that he would win 90% of the Black vote in the primaries. But what has Mrs. Clinton done that is not good for Blacks? What does she propose to do that is not good for Blacks? Put another way, what exactly is it that Mr. Obama will do for Blacks that Mrs. Clinton won't? Certainly, it can't be win the general election. Is the issue the invasion? Is there some reason why Blacks should be even more opposed to the invasion than other Democrats? Is it change? Is there some reason why Blacks should be even more in favor of change than other Democrats? Hard to figure, but we need to make sure that Mrs. Clinton knows what that issue is -- just in case she ends up getting the nomination.
1988 wrote on January 28, 2008 10:10 PM:If I was Jesse Jackson, I would have pointed out how I won 11 states in 1988.
Obama has a ways to go to catch him.
The Jackson "Rainbow Coalition" campaign was Edwards' message delivered in Obama's style.
It's interesting to note how all of the posters who -- a scant 24 hours ago -- were whining that the Bill Clinton clip was edited to distort its meaning are now nowhere to be seen or heard, now that the proof is in (via the link above) that the clip wasn't distorted AT All.
LUCKING FIARS!!!
I was ready to eat my words if I was proven wrong. Where are all of YOU now? At least some of today's posters have the stones to write "Yeah, he said it; so what?". Many people probably disagree with that sentiment, but at least none of them are falsely accusing the media of reporting Bill's comments out of context.
JayKay wrote on January 29, 2008 3:19 AM:I'm glad to see that people realize the game that was being played - on African Americans, Latinos and Caucasian Americans.
It is a terrible thing to stir up racial divisions to gain political advantage and I'm glad people are seeing those tactics for what they are and rejecting them.
Obama's message has always been one of unity for all people and it is heartening to see this stronger message shining through.
negemail53@gmail.com wrote on January 29, 2008 2:55 PM:Dont know how many others are as incensed as I am about these chain emails being sent to religious groups and others that question Sen. Barack Obamas patriotism and religious beliefs. (See press link to last weeks open letter from Jewish groups being bombarded with these emails: http://www.adl.org/internet/Letter_obama.asp)
The use of the Internet to spread false information about a political candidate--- and thus to affect the outcome of an election--- is particularly abhorrent to me.
We cannot regress to old-style dirty tricks. In the public interest, we need to get behind these emails---and identify who originated them.
If you have received such an email, please forward it to me.
negemail53@gmail.com
