Scarborough called Crawford "only guy" defending Bill Clinton's Jackson comment -- ignoring Jackson himself
SUMMARY: On Morning Joe, Joe Scarborough asserted that Congressional Quarterly's Craig Crawford is "the only human being on the face of the Earth, other than Bill Clinton, that doesn't think Bill Clinton's Jesse Jackson remark was inappropriate." He also said Crawford is "the only guy who has defended ... Bill Clinton's Jesse Jackson remark." But Jackson has reportedly said that he does not "read anything negative into Clinton's observation."
On the January 29 edition of MSNBC's Morning Joe, co-host Joe Scarborough teased a segment with Congressional Quarterly columnist Craig Crawford by asserting that Crawford is "the only human being on the face of the Earth, other than [former President] Bill Clinton, that doesn't think Bill Clinton's Jesse Jackson remark was inappropriate." Scarborough was referring to Clinton's statement on January 26 that "[Rev.] Jesse Jackson won in South Carolina twice, in '84 and '88, and he ran a good campaign, and Senator [Barack] Obama's [D-IL] running a good campaign." During the segment, Scarborough said to Crawford: "[Y]ou and Bill Clinton obviously go to Dunkin' Donuts in the morning and sit there and eat glazed donuts and drink coffee, because you are the only guy who has defended Bill Clinton's ... Jesse Jackson remark." In fact, according to a January 28 post on The New York Times blog The Caucus, Jackson himself has said that he does not "read anything negative into Clinton's observation."
The post also quoted Jackson saying: "Bill has done so much for race relations and inclusion, I would tend not to read a negative scenario into his comments." Jackson has endorsed Obama for president.
From The Caucus' January 28 blog post:
Mr. Clinton had noted that Mr. Jackson had won South Carolina in the Democratic contests in 1984 and 1988. Pundits and many in the blogosphere interpreted Mr. Clinton's mention of Mr. Jackson as an attempt to diminish Mr. Obama -- and what would turn out to be his landslide victory Saturday in South Carolina over Senator Hillary Clinton [D-NY] -- because Mr. Jackson had not gone on to win the Democratic nomination.
But Mr. Jackson said he did not see it that way.
"I don't read anything negative into Clinton's observation," Mr. Jackson said in a phone conversation late Sunday night from India, where he is taking part in a commemoration of the 60th anniversary of the assassination of Mahatma Gandhi.
[...]
In his conversation with Mr. Obama on Saturday, Mr. Jackson said, "He told me what Bill had said. And I said to Barack, as a tactical matter, resist any temptation to come down to that level. There may be temptations, especially when the media keeps saying 'Barack is black,' and they never said 'Dukakis is white' or 'Hillary is white,'' he said, referring to Michael Dukakis, who won the Democratic nomination in 1988.
But, 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.
Several other prominent Democrats had also talked with Mr. Clinton earlier in the week, urging him not to escalate racial tensions within the party. One, Representative James Clyburn of South Carolina, said on CNN that Mr. Clinton should "chill."
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."
From the January 29 edition of MSNBC's Morning Joe:
SCARBOROUGH: Coming up next -- OK, I got a bone to pick with this guy.
BRZEZINSKI: Yeah, you do, but you know what? I just want you to listen --
SCARBOROUGH: Craig Crawford --
BRZEZINSKI: -- to what Craig Crawford has to say before you speak.
SCARBOROUGH: OK. All right, we got --
BRZEZINSKI: Just listen.
SCARBOROUGH: We got Craig Crawford coming up.
BRZEZINSKI: Listen before you speak.
SCARBOROUGH: I'm not going to say he's totally in the tank for the Clintons --
BRZEZINSKI: I'm just saying you listen before you speak.
SCARBOROUGH: I'm just saying he's the only human being on the face of the Earth, other than Bill Clinton, that doesn't think Bill Clinton's Jesse Jackson remark was inappropriate. But he's going to be here, because you know what?
BRZEZINSKI: I have some thoughts about it, too.
SCARBOROUGH: I'm fair; I'm open-minded, and Mika, I am on a mission to unite America.
BRZEZINSKI: Oh, gosh.
SCARBOROUGH: Craig Crawford will [inaudible] -- become part of that mission and my ministry when we return.
[...]
SCARBOROUGH: Let's talk about the Democrats. What do you make of Ted Kennedy's historic speech yesterday in Washington?
CRAWFORD: I can't think of a president -- I can't think of anyone he endorsed who became president.
[laughter]
BRZEZINSKI: Oh, OK.
CRAWFORD: But there were some who got the nomination, I'll give him that.
SCARBOROUGH: He's so --
BRZEZINSKI: Wow.
SCARBOROUGH: I will not say you're so in the tank for the Clintons, but --
CRAWFORD: Oh, no, wait a minute.
SCARBOROUGH: -- but come on, buddy! You are the only person --
CRAWFORD: Now, I came over to see if you guys actually froth at the mouth when you talk about Bill Clinton. I mean, you guys obsess about Bill Clinton more than he does about himself.
SCARBOROUGH: Yeah, I'm telling you, you and Bill Clinton obviously go to Dunkin' Donuts in the morning and sit there and eat glazed donuts and drink coffee, because you are the only guy who has defended Bill Clinton's --
BRZEZINSKI: Well, let's see --
SCARBOROUGH: -- Jesse Jackson remark.
BRZEZINSKI: I want to hear this.
SCARBOROUGH: And I do, too. I find it fascinating. So, go ahead, defend away.
CRAWFORD: I thought it was real politics. I mean, you know, if -- you know, I was told --
SCARBOROUGH: Racist politics or real politics?
CRAWFORD: No, no, no. Real politics, I mean, here's the deal, you know, with, you know, that race in South Carolina, he was asked -- they were talking about the history of voting in South Carolina, you know, that clip's just not part of the clip that's been shown. The senator, Carrie Meek's --
BRZEZINSKI: But, Craig, it wasn't a slip of the tongue.
CRAWFORD: -- [former Rep.] Carrie Meek's [D-FL] son [Rep. Kendrick Meek (D-FL)] was there; he's been talking about that. So, anyway, they'd been having a discussion about the voting history in South Carolina before he said that. But even so, I mean, that is a fact, isn't it, that --
BRZEZINSKI: Yeah, but was it a slip of the tongue?
CRAWFORD: -- Jesse Jackson won those two --
SCARBOROUGH: Why would he bring that up, though?
CRAWFORD: -- and they were caucuses, which is -- because they were -- they'd been talking about it. They'd been talking about the voting down there in South Carolina.
BRZEZINSKI: Are you saying that the sound bite is being brought out of context?
CRAWFORD: Well, there is no context in the sound bite, hardly; there's only the first few seconds before he makes those remarks.
BRZEZINSKI: You do not think it was a mistake for him to bring up --
CRAWFORD: Well, the people who were there say it had been discussed --
SCARBOROUGH: What about --
CRAWFORD: -- Carrie Meek's son in particular.
Oh please, who doesn't think that Bill Clinton wasn't explicitly insinuating that Obama won SC because of his race? Of course he was, this was even too transparent even for the Clintons.
And does anyone expect Jackson to publicly disagree with that?
Tommy
I agree, the comment had racial overtones and Jackson has disapointed me. For some reason he seems beholden to the Clintons. Leaving Obama in the wind.
What the hell's business is it of yours to tell Jackson how he's supposed to feel? If he didn't feel upset, he wasn't.
It's preposterous to claim that Jackson would NOT have said anything if he was offended. He has no dog in this race.
It's not just Jackson, either. Today, Maxine Waters slammed the press for this phony accusation.
Apparently, Obama fans can mention racial issues. But if anyone else even begins to note things, they're bigots, right? Including Bill Clinton?
Gimme a break-- this kind of phony, self-righteous attitude will doom the Obama candidacy.
Great point but the media knows race is a hot button issue and if you can interject it into something like politics then all of a sudden you get better ratings. I wonder who black republicans voted for in FL or cuban republicans. We will never know. It is almost like the media is trying to brand the party with the most diverse candidates as the racist party. It is hard not to vote along racial lines when all your voters are white and so are all of your candidates. What a great party the Republican party would be today if it were still 1952.
Slammed the press? It isn't the press that made it up, it's Bill Clinton who marginalized and minimized Obama's win in SC by effectively saying that it was because he was black, just as Jesse Jackson won the state for the same reasons.
No way was Bill Clinton going to give Obama credit for winning based on his merits, or his appeal, or any other relevant issue - but make it about race instead, it was clear and simple race baiting.
And you're without prejudice of course? I know you have always seemed very angry and prickly and at times down right hateful which makes you quick to dismiss people who disagree with you or people who you think are getting in the way of the vision you imagine for the country. Your fast to throw out the bigot and racist term to Conservative posters; but your posts of the last few weeks on race and specifically your feelings about Black people have been very telling. You have posted things reminiscent of the most right wingest thing I've ever seen posted about "the Blacks". You have posed questions like why are Blacks supporting a Half Black candidate since he’s not even really one of “you” and you’ve said that HC has done more for "Black people" than Obama without telling us specifically what those things are and you seem to be demanding that WE BLACK people support HC and implying that we don’t know what’s best for us and you’ve decided that HC is best for us. These patronizing statements and stereotypical assumptions that the only reason a Black person could have to support Obama is because he's Black are very revealing. So Black people can't possibly care about anything else besides whatever it is you think “Black issues” are? Why are the White Obama supporters supporting him? The irony is the only reason you've stated your support for HC is because you believe it's time to have a female president and you have attacked Obama, Black people and Obama supporters in general because like HC you are angry at anyone who you believe is getting in your way of having a female president. You have revealed your own biases and stereotypes and assumptions about race on this board over the last few weeks. Oh and I won’t even talk about how you one of the most consistently angry posters here has been calling other people "haters" and angry. You’re the one who seems to hate Obama and of course Obama supporters.
"if Jackson isn't offended, why would YOU be ???"
I don't think the comment was racist, since it didn't say anything about black people in general. It was specific to Obama, downplaying his win as being just because of his color. That is certainly insulting, uncalled-for, and serving no strategic purpose. It comes off as sour grapes.
Meanwhile, Jackson may not want to fan the flames anymore, considering Bill has been told to "chill out". Whether he wants to make a fuss about it or not has no bearing on anyone else's right to an opinion on it.
downplaying his win as being just because of his color.
That's too harsh.
South Carolina has a strong black Dem voting population. They have shown in the past that they favor a black candidate, and they showed it again last week. We are not surprised. Nothing wrong with it.
But an overwhelming win in South Carolina does not necessarily translate into the Dem nomination. Clinton downplayed Obama's win, yes, but in response to the media's absurd elevation of it. Did you watch the TV reports that day ? It was absurd. They all but declared Obama kind of the universe !
If any conservative made the same statements you are making here they would be run out of this forum on a rail, and rightly so. I cannot believe you cannot see the racial overtones and the inherent disrespect you have towards blacks with your comments. How is what you are saying any different than what Bill O'Reilly said about the black owned Harlem restaurant a few months back?
Answer? None.
You apparently think that there are no black voters who will vote for a black candidate because, even in part, the candidate is black. I amblack candidate, in part or wholly, because the candidate is black. There are female voters who will vote for a female candidate, in part or wholly, because the candidate is female. There are gay voters who will vote for a gay candidate, in part or wholly, because the candidate is female.
Here's a twist for you ... if I am voting and I cannot make a decision based on the candidate's platforms, I will often vote by race. Yes, this white girl votes for BLACK candidates, because I want to see more blacks in political office.
My post was bashed by the editor ...
The sentence that says "I amblack candidate, in part or wholly, because the candidate is black. "
was supposed to say
"I am saying that there are black voters who will vote for a black candidate, in part or wholly, because the candidate is black"
But to insult black people by implying that is the reason they vote is absurd - as if they are mindless robots who can't intellectually choose based on relevant reasons.
Where in Clinton's comment did he say that the black voters voted for Obama only because Obama is black ????
"What I said was to insinuate, as Clinton did, that blacks did vote based on race and that is why Obama won SC is race baiting."
Even if Clinton did say that, what's race baiting about it? Pollsters note this all the time.
Oh, I get it. If you're an Obama supporter (or a Clinton hater) you can reference race. But if you're not, you're a culpbale bigot?
And by the way-- why no mention of the reverse-racism of Blacks not voting for a White in S.C.?
"It was specific to Obama, downplaying his win as being just because of his color. That is certainly insulting, uncalled-for, and serving no strategic purpose. It comes off as sour grapes."
Gimme a break. With anyone else, it's called campaign rebuttal. But with Bill Clinton, it's called racism and bigotry!
Obama supporters and this rabid, insane media are grasping at straws.
Tommy, the reason Hillary & Bill decided to send Bill to South Carolina in the FIRST place was in hopes that Bill could cut into the lead Obama established with black folks. Bill & Hillary were seriously hoping that since he had the title of "First Black President" that would hopefully help him in pealing away some of the black vote for Hillary. The reason for the Jessie comment was to try to marginalize Obama victory since he could not get those black folks to vote for Hillary.
What both Hillary & Bill SHOULD examine is THEIR conduct prior to the debates and the debates themselves. It would answer why they lost whatever black voter percentage she originally had.
Obama's followers seem to be people who think all America has to do is be enlightened like them and realize the greatness Obama will usher into Washington. They also seem to be people who have great disdain for those who question that narrative. It is starting to become troubling and make an Obama VP slot a must if Hillary wins. I think it is anyway but this childish behavior has to cool once Hillary starts to run away with the nomination, which could come as early as a week from tonight. Also, Obama's tone is troubling. I would hope Hillary never says Obama will "pull out many dishonest republican attacks about Bill and I to win". He has said just as worse about her. There is no moral high ground in this battle. It is pure politics, it real politics, not racial politics.
Ha (that’s a Chris Matthews laugh)
What Obama supporters want is CHANGE. We don’t want a "do over" Bill and we don’t want a "do over" Bush we simply want CHANGE!!!!! No more Bill, no more Tom Delay, simply NO MORE!!! CHANGE!!!!!
Hey if Hillary and her supporters DON’T want Obama & his supporters(assuming (a**) she wins) then they don’t have to ASK him or his supporters for support. But unless they are seriously having a hard time with math THEY NEED HIM!!! Of course it’s considered “childish” to object when you have played your best hand and STILL find yourself SHORT of a win. Let me give you a freaking clue, you play dirty and guess what, you find that you need the VERY people you’ve played dirty against. You know there is an old saying "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you". THAT’S what Hillary AND her supporters have found. So full and so busy calling Obama an "Empty Suit" and his supporters "stupid, dumb, naive". Another clue STOP the typical Republican crap of talking trash about Obama, we are all from the same freaking party!. Hillary & supporters seem to think THEY can do it alone. Hey if you can, good luck but since I know you can’t cut the SH*T about Obama, realize that people don’t feel kindly towards you when you call them stupid, dumb, naive or pissy. RESPECT will get you a lot farther than the Bull SH*T you've been dishing!.
Lost, THIS has NOTHING to do with Obama and EVERYTHING to do with the man I considered the first black President.
Clinton has NOT become “dirt” IMO however I’m extremely disappointed and upset with the tactics Bill Clinton has used. Bill Clinton and Hillary Clinton ARE NOT RACIST! LET ME SAY IT AGAIN, THE CLINTONS ARE NOT RACIST! As I’ve said time and time again, race baiting is a Republican election tactics that has been used against African Americans during the election process. To have Bill & Hillary use those same tactics pisses me off, period! This is NOT about my support for Obama as I’ve said time and time again. I was more than prepared to vote for Hillary should she get the nomination, until after Iowa. THAT is when Bill became her attack dog and sorry it wasn’t pretty.
I’m not everyone, so why you feel the need to lump me with others because I object to Bill's actions are beyond me. I'm tired of trying to explain WHY Bill's actions to me were race baiting. You simply have to accept that while I have always liked Bill and even voted for him twice I did not like nor approve of his attack dog actions after his wife lost Iowa. I lost respect for both he and Hillary, period.
I disagree with your summary of what is happening and so I addressed you. I don't think the Clintons are race baiting at all but there does seem to be a concerted effort going on to push this idea and sensationalize things.
Lost, I apologize for my reaction. It's seems to me that I have to explain again and again why I think Bill was race baiting. I'm also sick of hearing that maybe I misunderstood since. I don't consider myself one to cry victim or play the race card. I try to be honest in my opinions and don't follow anyone, especially "the media" when forming my opinions. Somehow my explanation nor my feelings on the subject are NEVER to anyone's satisfaction. From those who support Hillary I'm told that I'm wrong and I'll admit I'm tired of hearing it.
I know the Clintons are not racist but to deny that Bill & Hillary decided that Bill would be the best person to go to South Carolina because of his close connection to blacks folks it insane. IMO that was the reason he was chosen to go in the first place. Bill & Hillary knew that some of the black vote would go to Obama but they were hoping to retain a decent percentage of the black vote. That did not happen and IMO THAT is why Bill compared Obama's win to Jessie Jackson. It was HIS effort to marginalize Hillary's defeat. He could have treated Obama's win with respect but Bill wasn't a big enough man to do that and IMO it makes me pity him for being so petty. I was all ready to let my anger at Bill go after South Carolina UNTIL he made that remark. Bill is not a stupid man, he knew exactly what he said and how it would be received. It is crushing to me that Bill wants to win and the same folks that have supported him through all of his ups and downs he has no problem using to win.
Whether Obama wins or loses is not the point for me. Bill was a man I admired and I told anyone proudly that he was MY President. I assumed that he at least respected black folks but watching he & Hillary go all out at any cost to win was surprising and extremely sad. I have watched Republicans play race based politics when losing and didn't expect Bill & Hillary to play the same trick.
Hi Atheist, once again, you reason too well. You're totally right, your points are well taken, but wasted with most of this Clinton-hating crowd.
They're all really quick to call people bigots, too, which must make them feel good. Clinton-hate and self-righteousness together makes for an obviously potent and disagreeable combo.
You and Atheist need to take some pills, seriously. The same way that people who criticize Bush aren't automatically Bush-haters, people who criticize the Clintons aren't automatically Clinton-haters.
If you want to look at the trend of behavior from their campaign and defend it, fine. But don't accuse people who simply see things differently as being irrational.
Lost,
What it shows is how calculating the Clintons are. They will throw anyone and anything under the bus if it's politically expedient to do so, this comment by Bill was political in nature, but he knew exactly what he was doing......I don't believe he is a racist, but rather a shameless politician who will do whatever it takes to win - if that means playing to racially charged motivations, so be it, it's all fair in politics - especially when you feel entitled to your party's nomination and you're not being coronated like you expected, according to the Clintons.
Lost,
I have explained my thoughts on this in numerous posts on this thread, I would just be covering old ground and being more repetitive (than usual).
We disagree.
If you can't come up with a quote from an Obama supporter, a very high level Obama supporter like Bill is to Hillary, in the same context and similarity as Bill's comment here, then just say so.
No need to get all huffy about it if you can't. (whatever)
Tommy, you are NOT wrong that Bill's so called subtle congrats to Obama was based on race. When you compare, if you possibility can, Obama's win to Jessie Jackson in 84 & 88 there is no comparison. Bill being a good old southern boy knows full well how to make a statement that to those who WANT to believe him will appear innocent and to those who have heard such bull sh*t lines before know EXACTELY what he meant. Compare the race, presidential considerations included, numbers and demographics and the only thing they have in common is race. And good old boy Bill said exactly what he meant to say. I just hope IF Hillary get the nomination they are both ready to kiss some serious a** cause that's what it's going to take to get many out to vote for her. Pardon me but Jesus Fu**ing Christ it's 2008 and almost every subtle line used by those good old southern boys has been heard AND understood.
"those good old southern boys..."
Hmm.. let me grab my dictionary and look up the definition of bigotry, and stereotyping, too, while I'm at it.
You got some explaining to do, Pearlene, for that comment....
Don't you think you're generalizing just a little? At least when I say Blacks and Browns don't really get along, I'm pointing to some evidence, like school disputes, voting patterns politically..
You mean YOU provided evidence like THIS:
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1707221,00.html
School disputes are NOT evidence that black and brown folks don't get along. School disputes are evidence that CHILDREN don't get along.
How about that Clinton was pointing out the last dem to win and not get on the presidential ticket in order to minimize the negative to HC's campaign. Nothing wqrong or unusual about that in a primary race.
Tonight's coverage of Hillary's won in FL
SHE DID NOT WIN!!!! But if saying so makes you feel better, OK.
Michigan moved its primary to January 15, 2008, also in violation of party rules. On December 1, 2007, the Democratic National Committee voted to deny Michigan’s request to hold its primary on January 15 and declared that Michigan’s delegates would not count in the nominating contest unless Michigan moved its primary to a later date.[26] That said, the Michigan Supreme Court ruled that the primary could go ahead as scheduled
There was an election in FL. Two actually. One candidate beat her nearest competitor by almost 300,000 votes. That same candidate received more than 120,000 more votes than the winner of the Republican Primary. Florida's demographics in the DEM primary are much more reflective of the Primaries to come than SC was and previews how Super Tuesday will likely vote. Indicators are that your man has alot of catching up to do. You think Democrats in Florida don't pay attention to this process? To say the results do not get Clinton closer to the nomination is correct but to dismiss the vote like you and MSNBC have done despite the number of votes cast by Democrats is a bit short sighted.
I urge everybody to contact MSNBC at letters@msnbc.com and urge them to fire JOE immediately.
Keep in mind, Scarborough's "face of the earth" is the rarefied atmosphere of Rightwing Media. His comment is of the "all my FRIENDS say" variety, meaning that the Rightwingers in his talking-head punditry are in agreement that Clinton's remarks can be called "racist'. That is the narrative, that is the story, no FACTUAL information need interfere with their mindreading and interpretations.
I can actually BELIEVE Joe hasn't run into anyone who disagrees with him, just as you'll find enthusiastic agreement within a football huddle. "We're gonna WIN!" you shout. "YEAH!" everyone agrees.
But it's a small and selective and partisan sampling in that huddle, just as it NOW is in the newsrooms of the MSM.
Are you trying to play hall monitor today?
"I know you and others love to read Tex's diatribes"
You have no idea what I think of his posts..... Have your super powers kicked back in again?
You were just harping on people early this week for playing "hall monitor" and then here you are doing that very same thing.
You consistent? Not so much.
TOMMY:
I'm totally on point. The issue is Scarborough citing HIS OWN EXPERIENCE as "evidence" that everyone agrees with HIM, and nobody else in the world disagrees.
My comment indicated that Scarborough's scope of experience is severely limited to like-thinking sycophants, much as Bush surrounds himself with "YES men" (and fires those who dare question his divinely-inspired policies).
So, I'm on point, on topic. Nice try at a deflection, though. On second thought, not a nice try at all.
To claim that the Clintons are playing the race card is ridiculous. Here are a few recent comments from Obama.
"We have an empathy deficit when we’re still sending our children down corridors of shame – schools in the forgotten corners of America where the color of your skin still affects the content of your education.
We have a deficit when CEOs are making more in ten minutes than some workers make in ten months; when families lose their homes so that lenders make a profit; when mothers can’t afford a doctor when their children get sick.
"We have a deficit in this country when there is Scooter Libby justice for some and Jena justice for others; when our children see nooses hanging from a schoolyard tree today, in the present, in the twenty-first century."
I gotta admit when I heard this I winced. Not because I thought it was race-baiting or racist but because I knew the media & others would jump on it & describe it as such. And the motley crew at MSNBC didn't let me down. They went spastic, well Joe S. especially.
I think Clinton was simply stating the obvious. I mean is it some sort of secret that the Black majority of voters came out for Obama? Which is their right. Just like some women are voting for Hillary because of her gender. I wish folks wouldn't pick a candidate based on race or gender, but as others have said here, it's human nature.
Was Bill shrugging off Obama's victory by implying it was no shock that a Black candidate would be almost expected to win in South Carolina? Sure. If some want to judge that as racists they can. I simply see it as an honest remark with a touch of political expediency. All's fair...
Was Bill shrugging off Obama's victory by implying it was no shock that a Black candidate would be almost expected to win in South Carolina? Sure. If some want to judge that as racists they can. I simply see it as an honest remark with a touch of political expediency. All's fair...
Jeter, you can't be naive.
Wouldn't the man who was crowned "The First Black President" BY black folks expect to get black votes, considering that back in October his wife had a pretty substantial lead with black voters? What's a man, who plays hardball politics with the best of them do when he DOESN'T get but a meager percentage of the black vote? He tries his best to marginalize the win. Racist? I guess it depends on if you have any knowledge in which to judge subtle and not so subtle racism.
Pearlene,
Perhaps I am being naive. Maybe you have a more sensitive ear about this than I do. Or maybe you're reading something more into this because it is a sensitive topic.
Had there been no Obama running in South Carolina there's no doubt in my mind that Hillary would have captured most of the Black vote for several reasons including Bill Clinton's popularity with African-Americans. Or had Obama not done well in either Iowa or N.H., Hillary would have probably split the Black vote with him. But the fact that Obama was more than a viable candidate certainly was a factor in Blacks voting overwhelmingly for him. Had there been no Hillary in the mix, do you doubt that Obama would have still beaten probably any other White candidate? Now I don't want to diminish his victory by saying African-Americans voted for him ONLY because of race, but it certainly played a part in it for some.
Just like some women are voting for Hillary based on gender.
It's my opinion that a lot of the racial tension of the past several weeks were based on misunderstandings as well as deliberate misinterpretations of certain remarks.
When Hillary made her comments about MLK, LBJ, & the Civil Rights movement I saw nothing in her remarks that were disrespectful, racist or demeaning. Yet some did. She was simply saying that it took leaders of the movement & a President to complete the process of getting the Civil Rights Act passed.
When Bill Clinton spoke about Obama's record on the Iraq war as being a fairy-tale, it was misinterpreted as him suggesting Obama's candidacy was a fairy-tale.
And it just goes on from there. Everyone scrutinizing every thing said or written & sometimes finding things that really aren't there.
Were Bill Clinton's words "subtle" racism? I guess each of us can only judge that for ourselves. And again Pearlene perhaps you might be a better judge of that than I.
J,
I have to respectfully disagree here. However, I do not think Bill Clinton is a racist, I do think his comments about Jackson winning in SC were racially motivated and it was race baiting. He was essentially saying, through subtle implication, that Obama won because he is black.......that his appeal is limited, that the votes he received are because he is black; thereby minimizing his victory and marginalizing his support by race, instead of issues and policy, or a host of far more relevant reasons.
I am sure some people voted for him because of his race, that is not what anyone is saying, I believe. But to insinuate that his support was race-based first, was to demean his support, and his voters.
Of course it was political, but it is also shameless, in my opinion......it was a subtle jab at dangling racially charged motives out there to those who feel that Obama's win was about race, throwing a little meat to them to unjustly validate their feelings that Obama can only appeal to blacks, that his candicacy can only go so far - so no point in furthering it anymore, vote for Hillary now, Obama isn't the real thing, except to those who share his race.
Bill Clinton knew exactly what he was doing, and now he is being reigned in a little, I understand.........it's about time. He ought to apologize.
That is my take anyway, but your comments are from the heart and well said as always, I tried to explain mine, I hope I succeeded.
Tommy,
I've replied to both you & Pearlene below. Since you & she seem to be of the same mind on this topic I thought it would be better to write one post rather than repeating myself ;-)
It's my opinion that a lot of the racial tension of the past several weeks were based on misunderstandings as well as deliberate misinterpretations of certain remarks. Or maybe you're reading something more into this because it is a sensitive topic.
What can I say to that Jeter. If I say that I’ve been there before then perhaps I’m being “too sensitive”. Without proof that is “acceptable” then it’s just my word. That’s OK cause I truly don’t play either the “victim” nor the “race card” but I know a duck when I see one long before it quacks.
When Hillary made her comments about MLK, LBJ, & the Civil Rights movement I saw nothing in her remarks that were disrespectful, racist or demeaning. Yet some did. She was simply saying that it took leaders of the movement & a President to complete the process of getting the Civil Rights Act passed. When Bill Clinton spoke about Obama's record on the Iraq war as being a fairy-tale, it was misinterpreted as him suggesting Obama's candidacy was a fairy-tale
Hillary simply misspoke. I truly believe that in the heat of her giving a speech and trying to separate Obama from MLK & JFK's likeness she misspoke. I had NO problem with that. The “fairy tale” Bill comment not so much. As I’ve said more times than I care to count Bill Clinton is the BEST politician around. He plays the “political” game better than anyone I can name. I truly don’t believe that in Bill’s vocabulary he couldn’t find another word other than “fairy tale” but I’m willing to accept is explanation. Jeter I loved Bill Clinton. Heck I was one of those that was PROUD to say he was the first black president. Part of my extreme anger is the fact that I did like Bill and he turned, IMO out to be no better than Republicans when it came to playing the race card. THAT is why Hillary will suffer in my opinion. She and Bill wanted to run a “joint” campaign and they BOTH have to accept extreme dislike and disappointment in THEIR behavior.
Pearlene & Tommy,
I hope you don't mind me addressing this to both of you instead of replying to each of your posts individually.
Let me begin by saying that I respect both of you as posters, & and take your opinions & viewpoints seriously. Also I consider you both to be two of my best cyber buddies on this forum.
I suppose we could keep going around in circles on this topic, & never quite reach a perfect agreement. While I fully understand your conclusions about Bill Clinton's remarks concerning Obama's South Carolina victory I do wonder if the bickering & charges of race-baiting & accusations of racial overtones that preceded it might not be influencing your reaction to Clinton's comments. What I'm getting at here is, I wonder if this had been an isolated remark instead of couched among other alleged racially insensitive comments that had been dominating the campaign weeks before it, if you would have still thought Clinton's assessment had a racial component. Perhaps you would have, but I'm just asking.
I fully agree that Clinton was playing a little politics here. And yes I think he was pointing out that a Black candidate would be expected to win, or do extremely well in a South Carolina primary. Was he saying Obama had a limited appeal only to African-American voters? I didn't hear it that way, but I can understand how it might be interpreted by some to mean just that. I think at best we & the media can only speculate about his motives.
I don't believe it's unfair or racist to point out that Obama does well with the Black vote. Or that Hillary does well with the female vote. Or that McCain does well with the media ;-)
J,
I understand your reasoning and you make very good points. I do think the overriding motive was political in nature, but I still believe he was race baiting as I explained above. If not, he could have spoke of other SC winners who did not get the nomination, Edwards in 2004 for example - however, he skillfully mentions only Jesse Jackson, much further back in history.
In any event, now that's it down to Obama vs Clinton only, let's hope issues dominate the rest of the primaries and how each candidate's vision and policy resonates with voters. This other stuff is distracting, for sure.
"What I'm getting at here is, I wonder if this had been an isolated remark instead of couched among other alleged racially insensitive comments that had been dominating the campaign weeks before it, if you would have still thought Clinton's assessment had a racial component."
That's a valid perspective, though. People should look at patterns of behavior and evaluate based on that. It doesn't prove anything, but it's certainly a reasonable indicator.
Honestly Jeter, I've been uncomfortable with Bill's full throttle attack on Obama for many reasons since Iowa. In the beginning IMO it appeared tacky for a former Democratic President to attack a fellow Democratic when he's suppose to be one the leaders of the Democratic party. I did not sense the racial tones until South Carolina. I watched Robert Johnson's comments about Obama while introducing Hillary at an event in So. Carolina. I completely lost it when the Clinton campaign issued a statement saying Johnson remarks were totally innocent. Of course they later issued an apology to Obama. There was then Clinton supporter state Senator Robert Ford saying that the Democrats would lose everything, house, senate, everything IF Obama was at the top of the ticket. Of course he joined a long list of Clinton supporters that have issued apologies to Obama. There a track record Jeter. Staff being ask to resign and her supporters constantly issuing apologies to Obama. I don’t know of one Obama staffer nor one Obama supporter who had to resign or apologize to Hillary. So I ask you what does that look like to you?
Hey LostLogic nice to see ya back, hope you'll stick around for awhile :-)
I asked something similar on a different thread a week or so ago, but I took it a step further.
What happens if Obama is elected President? Will every criticism, every unfavorable comment by the media or political rivals, even if deserved, be defined as having racial overtones?
Jeter:
I respect your decision and the decision of others who do not support Obama. You guys have concluded that Obama doesn't have what you feel is necessary to be an effective president and I respect your right to that opinion and to support the candidate of your choosing. My process of selection of a candidate was quite similar. I determined where the candidates are on the issues that are very important to me and if they had a plan of action, and I concluded that the top 3 Dem candidates are almost identical on my big issues so I started looking at the things where they differed. I researched records, which included legislative records and I was a little surprised at some of the things that HC has supported. I’ve also concluded that while HC has been around government and DC longer than Obama or Edwards she is exaggerating when she says she has 30+ years of experience. Being the wife of the President of a Bank doesn’t make the wife automatically capable of managing a Bank. HC’s been in the Senate in her own right for one term and a half and certainly she’s played an important role in B. Clinton’s governmental operations where she worked on focused issues and I am certain she worked as an unofficial advisor. So in my opinion she only has a marginal advantage over Obama if you’re just measuring how long she's held national office. Unlike HC Obama didn’t come into office and accept the status quo of the inevitability of a fixed nexus of lobbyist, politicians, and other DC power chasers and hanger ons that eats up legislative time and my tax dollars in general. I want to see something different in Washington and Hilary Clinton doesn’t share that particular view with me. I believe that Obama does and Edwards does in my opinion but Obama has the magnetism and the passion needed I believe to get the support of a cross section of regular Americans to believe that we can have a new way of doing business in DC if we demand it; and I'm convinced that he can do that along with implementing action on the issues that he and I both share with Hilary Clinton. He isn’t perfect, he’s isn’t magical but I believe he’s sincere. As I said all of the Dems are there on the big issue for me, but Obama's new way of doing the people's business puts him above the others for me.But back to my main point, Jeter I don't think that expecting politicians particularly a politician of Bill Clinton's stature not to play to racial fears is asking for hands off approach to the candidate I support. When John McCain allowed one of his supporters to call HC a b-itch I came out strong against that. Now I know that you and Lost don't agree that's what happened. It's amazing how perspectives of otherwise reasonable people, and I believe that Pearl and I are pretty reasonable people can differ so. You and Lost heard Clinton's statement and concluded he didn't mean anything inappropriately you obviously processed it and reached a completely different conclusion than Pearl, I and many others reached. You say your interpretation is the correct one and ours is incorrect but obviously as much as I respect you and Lost I think you guys are wrong. In addition, I know you're not saying you don't think that a minority candidate should ever run for president and I really believe that you would support the candidate that you think is best for the office irrespective of race or gender. Nevertheless, we still live in a society where people where the race will be front and center at least with the first minority president. Until that goes away, that would always be a factor to contend with. I know you're not saying what some might interpret as well if I have to hear all this race stuff for 4-8 years then I don't ever want a Black/Hispanic president? The race stuff as annoying as it is will have to be dealt with unless the majority population concludes that they're never going to support a minority for the presidency because of that. Anyway have a good evening.
Lynn,
I hope you return to this thread to read my reply.
I'm glad I thought to give this thread one more look see or I would have missed your very thoughtful post.
Let me begin by saying that while you, Pearlene, Lost Logic, myself & others have differing opinions or drew different conclusions on several of Bill or Hillary's remarks I do hope you read what I wrote to Pearlene in an earlier post. Basically I felt that her judgment might be better than mine on this particular topic & that she might have a more sensitive ear to racist remarks that I, as someone who has never been subjected to racism might have. Also I understood that even if I didn't agree with her assessment [or Tommy's] I fully understood how one could interpret it exactly the way she & he heard it.
Lynn, I like Obama. I like his uplifting message of hope & change. And I like Hillary. And Bill. I'm someone who sees Bill Clinton back in the White House as more of a positive than negative. I must admit I don't see wide differences [issue-wise] between Obama & Hillary. But I haven't put in the research you have. It sounds as if you've done extensive homework.
To be honest I'm not very excited about this election season. I'm a Conservative without any candidate to really be excited about, on either side. I envy those like yourself that are passionate about supporting a particular candidate. I will not vote for McCain. I'm still looking at Romney though that may soon be a moot point & quite honestly even if he should somehow end up as the Republican nominee I will still likely vote Democratic this time around. And just because I may have not had the same reaction to Bill or Hillary's recent remarks as you or Pearlene does not mean I would not vote for Obama should he be the Democratic nominee. I'm not sure where you got the idea that I wouldn't. While I may feel Hillary would be the stronger of the two, that may be based on the fact that I know more about her than Obama. My fault for not doing my homework.
Lynn, my worries about Obama as President are not about him personally. I worry it will be others that will scrutinize & monitor every criticism, or question through a prism of racism. These worries did not even come to my mind until these past several weeks when race became an issue & Obama seem to become a Black candidate running for President instead of a candidate for President who happen to be an African-American. None of this was Obama's fault. He never injected race into his candidacy, others did.
Lynn, if Barack Obama is the Democratic nominee I will vote for him. I hope that you know my concerns about an Obama presidency are based not on him, but on those that want to keep this nation divided.
Hope you get to read this. Goodnight Lynn :-)
SAVE DEMOCRACY, VOTE FOR A DEMOCRAT!!
Clinton is insinuating that blacks voted for Obama because of his race, that is playing the race card. /// Tommy
Where? I want to see that quote that insinuates that Obama's support was only for his race! Making up the facts to suit your argument is so Republican of you!
Happy Thoughts;
Dan Grady
SAVE DEMOCRACY, VOTE FOR A DEMOCRAT!!
Hysterical! Is that what you say when you can't back you opinions? The kind of punditry that starts it's justifications with "Some people are saying..." or "the word on the street...." where exactly did you here President Clinton say anything that could be rationally seen as racist???
Were ever the facts don't support your position do what the Republican always does, make it up!
You claim racism from a former President on the campaign trail for his wife, so where is it!
Happy Thoughts;
Dan Grady
SAVE DEMOCRACY, VOTE FOR A DEMOCRAT!!
Liar? Liar? I won't marry you, and I never said I would!
Your not my type, I'm already married, and I'm stil heterosexual.
Happy Thoughts;
Dan Grady
DAN:
To Tommy, it is a FACT that he personally can see "subtle implications".
Those subtle implications are then, FACTS.
Hope this helps you understand Tommy's "fact base".
SAVE DEMOCRACY, VOTE FOR A DEMOCRAT!!
Clinton is insinuating that blacks voted for Obama because of his race, that is playing the race card.// Tommy
There is a large number of black voters in the Democratic Primary, and there has been for a long time. So, he's white and not allowed to recognize this fact? Where did this insinuating happen, where in his quote do you find race baiting?? Your imagination don't count!
Happy Thoughts;
Dan Grady
SAVE DEMOCRACY, VOTE FOR A DEMOCRAT!!
Joe Scarborough was a disgrace as a Congressman, we should not be suprised he'd be as much a disgrace on camera.
If Bill Clinton trys to equate Jesse Jackson's win in South Carolina to Obama's it's to marginalize him, which is certainly fair politics for a Presidential Primary. The Republicans see their ship sinking and want to drag everybody down with them.
The Republicans made racism a plank in the party platform, and can't help but to try to drag the Democrats down with them. They are going to make any possible distortion the story, and avoid reality where ever possible. Recession is the word of the day, and the Republicans own it.
Come convention time we'll have Bill Clinton telling us the same thing that got him elected both times, "It's the ECONOMY STUPID!" If it's his wife, or Barack, or Edwards will not matter. Republicans have had the reins of power for the past 6years and managed to drive the greatest nation in the world right into the ditch.
Happy Thoughts;
Dan Grady
Fair politics? And to try and blame the Republicans is the most idiotic thing I have heard.
But I will remember your "fair politics" remark if and when a Republican uses it on him, will you say the same then? Of course you won't.
SAVE DEMOCRACY, VOTE FOR A DEMOCRAT!!
Tommy lamenting the racism in Clinton's remark.
So, where is the racism. Jackson won both primary votes, and did not carry the day. That is true, and a fair comparison because it's true. You would choose to believe the only truth is their skin color. You would make any statement out of context whatever suits your purpose.
Republican examples of twisted verberage could not be more discrpt than the infamous 'Patriot Act!" I would say any media that would spend the past 6years avoiding the obvious oxymoron in that title cares not about the truth
Happy Thoughts;
Dan Grady
"If Bill Clinton trys to equate Jesse Jackson's win in South Carolina to Obama's it's to marginalize him, which is certainly fair politics for a Presidential Primary. The Republicans see their ship sinking and want to drag everybody down with them.
The Republicans made racism a plank in the party platform, and can't help but to try to drag the Democrats down with them. They are going to make any possible distortion the story, and avoid reality where ever possible. Recession is the word of the day, and the Republicans own it."---D.G.
Right, "fair politics", this is a fight after all.
Right, "drag the Democrats down with them", the Rovian tactic of smearing your opponent with your own weakness.You have no idea ??? Right. >:-)
Truth Seeker,
Are you saying that the whites who voted for Hillary and Edwards voted based on race?
That's not analogous. I think it's easy to understand how some black people would want to see a black president, since that would be a tremendous step. There's not quite the same dynamic for Edwards, since we've had a few white guys in the office already.
If Bill wants to say that the margin of victory is due to blacks supporting Obama, that is supportable. For him to imply that's the reason he won at all is a different story.
You're claiming that blacks didn't vote based on race?
Truth, I'm sure it's hard for you to imagine but truly black folks have many many more worries than simply race. I'm sure you didn't mean to be insulting but even liberals should be up to date with the knowledge that black folks have the same education, economic and social concerns that many many white folks have. SO MAYBE black folks voted for Obama for reasons OTHER than race.
At the risk of sounding patronizing, may I extend congratulations on a discussion, of a sensitive subject, conducted with a maximum of seriousness and a minimum of snark. No one, however, has mentioned what to me, is a relevant fact. In all the interminable discussion of the "horse race" by pundits and pollsters, the electorate is broken down into racial, socio-economic, gender, and religious groupings, with their respective voting patterns predicted and analyzed. This is the context within which Bill Clinton's remarks were made, and should, in my opinion, be understood. There can be no doubt that his remarks were intended to diminish the impact of Obama's victory. There can also be no doubt that he is not, given his history, a racist, though which of us can be sure of the purity of our attitudes, way down in the deep recesses of our souls? He pointed out something that the pundits would have been talking about, to minimum outrage, had he not said it. The fact that he brought it up, for obvious political advantage, has given the punditocracy, especially right-wingers, cover to discuss it, and discuss it with faux rightous outrage. I wish he hadn't done it, because I think it will prove divisive, but I'm sure he calculated that it would only be a scratch on party unity.
I also find it interesting that Scarborough wanted to discuss this with Crawford, rather than Crawford's (accurate, in my opinion) castigating the chattering class for its shoot first, don't think at all attitude toward the Clintons.
"I have no idea, but to insinuate they did is race baiting, and offensive to those that voted for Obama for a host of reasons. Are you saying that blacks will blindly vote for a black candidate just because of their shared race?"
They absolutely will more likely vote for a black candidate who has a legitimate shot. I am not saying it is racist. It's human nature, and it's the same with any group. When Mel Martinez ran in Florida, he received a high hispanic vote. When evangelicals vote, they vote in much higher numbers for evangelical candidates. It has nothing to do with being blind.
Thank you for your post. I'm glad that there are people here who can say the obvious without worry that they will sound racist or sexist.
Again I bring up the analogy of women voters ... will any of us be surprised if more women vote for Hillary ? Are we sexist if we acknowledge this ? Of course we're not. It would be sexist to say that ALL women will vote for Hillary just because she's a woman.
Atheist you have made some really goog points about this topic. I didn't hear all this outrage when Hillary's win after that first loss was attributed to women turning out to support a women. This race is unique because we have two firsts a women and an AA...race and gender will for some become an issue and possibly tip you in favor of one over the other...I have heard of worse reasons to vote for someone...not that I recommend being a one issue voter but all things being equal that may be the deciding factor for some. At the end of the day this will be history making.
Truth Seeker,
Are you saying that the whites who voted for Hillary and Edwards voted based on race?
It's a little different. There has never been a black president. Also, the polls would say yes. According to the exit polls, whites over 29 voted approximately 75% for Clinton and Edwards. Obama received about 52% of the white voters aged 18 to 29.
I clicked "reply to this comment", but it didn't display the comment in my previous post.
As someone who watched some of today's broadcast, I think it's kind of telling that MMFA has absolutely ignored the comments Crawford made with regard to the Kennedy endorsement. He totally laid in to Kennedy as a loser who was singularly responsible for the Reagan and Bush 1 presidency. He laid into Obama as being entirely unelectable, someone who it's considered an attack to say his full name (which Craig Crawford immediately did while trying to put it off on Bill Bennett). He suggested Democrats wouldn't vote for Obama. The omission of this (even after I sent it in to MMFA right after I saw it) seems rather telling.
jeter2 and those trying tp put some logic on this issue.
My grandfather is an old southermer (don't lump all these together- he worked wit several AA and has no racial inclinations what so ever.)
He told me once that it takes a RACIST to see RACISM in everything. I know blacks who are just are racist as the KKK. I also know several who aren't. Thats why I will not support Obama even if he wins. MLK had a dream- that dream unlike Obama and Oprah would have believe, was not to put a black in the WH but rather that we judge a man by the content of his character rather than the color of his skin. My grandparents drove that into us we live by it. A picture of this man hung in thier home ( A WHITE SOURTERNER) because he believed in the dream. My grandmothers family suffered from the predijuce as Indians. Once my greatgrandmother was refused to be seated in a cafe. His message rung not as a black issue but as an equality issue.
IRONY Is now that we are willing to judge a man by his character andwe find it lacking-- WE are racist because are not willing to support the BLACK Guy who has yet to show me wy he deserves my vote outside of the same old DC is broken crap that everyone has peddled for years. I judged OBAMA on his content and found it nothing but vague rhetoric. But now I am a racist because I choose to leave race out of it. We are not allowed to criticize OBAMA without being racist. We are not allowed to point out the obvious if its against him without being racist. ITS seems that the AA are the ones trashing the dream by not allowing us the opportunity make an informed choice about the substance of OBAMA not his race.
"I'm just saying he's the only human being on the face of the Earth, other than Bill Clinton, that doesn't think Bill Clinton's Jesse Jackson remark was inappropriate."
Back on topic: How come Scarborough doesn't get called out on this when Jackson himself doesn't think the remark was "inappropriate"?
many in this thread (and jessie jackson) totally miss the point of what bill did.
he threw in a non sequitor.
he was asked how it felt that it would take two clintons to beat obama...he laffed the question off, then segued into his jackson comment.
the answer had nothing to do with the question, and was designed to remind everyone of obama's race, and to also make the statement that just like jackson, obama is not a serious candidate for the presidency
it was not the high point of the man's career and has caused me to look at both clintons in a much different light.
next up....when will one of hillary's handlers tell her to dump the fake laugh...