Why I didn't mention the 1988 SC results.....

I knew about it too and the ONE SINGLE REASON I didn't mention it here was because I knew if I did then some Obama supporters would start hollering racism as soon as I mentioned it.

You know how I found out about that tidbit of info on Jackson? I was reading The Guardian.....an actual real, non-tabloid newspaper in the UK.......and there it was for all to see. Nothing racist about it at all..........had it been a white candidate I wouldn't have hesitated to post the 54% Jackson to Gore's 19%. The first thing that struck me when I read it was the high percentage lead Jackson took aver Gore. I didn't think black or white at all until I realized I shouldn't use it here in a discussion since Jackson was Black. And you know what? That's not right. I'm tired of tiptoeing around my comments so that others here don't misinterpret everything I say as having a hidden agenda.

One point I would like to make though is it wasn't a primary that Jackson won in 1988. It was the SC Caucus. SC Democrats if memory serves were still caucusing then. Not that any of it makes any difference to me. Like I said the one thing that struck me initially was the 54%. To me, that just means that the Democratic winner in SC does not necessarily go on to take the WH....nothing sinister in it.........nothing racist in.......just an observation.

Some people really do need to calm down and quit seeing messages that just aren't there.

ETA a link to the article I read:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uselections08/story/0,,2247789,00.html

If Edwards won 81% of the white vote in 2004 he would be a perfect analogue as well. He didn't. Neither did Clinton in 1992.

I don't know. I wasn't the reporter of the Gusardian Article. The huge margin of victory is what struck me.

a comparison with Edwards is more accurate.

If you're doing race, there is no comparison to Jackson because he ran a niche campaign.

I don't think that evaluating the dynamics of "race" are an invalid topic of discussion. Slur and innuendo, on the other hand, is.

So, there was no reason for Clinton to go back that far unless HE was reaching for a black candidate who won SC and didn't win the nomination. None.

That's not political korrectness. That's just a fact.

I was around in 1988 and Jackson surely did not run a niche campaign. He stayed in until the convention and in point of fact, ran second to Dukakis by measure of percentage of vote received, states won, and delegates won. He did this in a very crowded field (Biden, Gore, Simon, Gephard, Jackson, Schroder, and Dukakis).

I must be getting senile. I remember that Jackson ran a good run but that no one ever expected him to get the nod.

but he did finish a solid second and was, as pointed out downthread, in the lead delegate wise after Super Tuesday. I think once it got down to a one on one contest and Jesse had alienated Jews, it was all over.

the corporate media at the time, I guess.

It's a completely valid comparison.

EVERY candidate looks for something relevant to compare and contrast their campaign to.

See: Bradley effect used in NH to explain Obama loss, for further clarification.

:hi:

Also, I agree about this place (as well as the elitist left) and their militant political correctness gone to far.

I'll update the OP too.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uselections08/story/0,,2247789,00.html

a young black drug dealer.

It's not okay to diss Dr. King's contribution.

It's not okay to suggest that electing a person of color is a fairy tale.

It's not okay to try to marginalize your opponent as "the black candidate".

As an "elitist" lefty, I hope you get out of that barn before it burns down to the ground.

Obama and the pundits twisted Clinton's words to make them appear to be bigots.
The "fairy tale" comment was in direct reference to whether or not Obama was really 100% against the war in Iraq.
Hillary never "dissed" King's contributions either.

I'm sorry, you are not the PC-police, you are the Rovian-Propagandists.

:)

in smearing the Clintons.

I hope my country doesn't bleed under their fragile leadership.

lol

in 1980 or 1984? Is that worth mentioning? Or 1992?

1988 was 20 years ago. Hardly seems to be worth bringing up unless there is some specific point to be made. And what would that point be?

Mz Pip
:dem:

There is only one analogue to Obama's win: Jesse Jackson's wins. It is dishonest to pretend otherwise.

how I interpret it. No other reason to mention it.

Mz Pip
:dem:

He could have had two goals: 1) to minimize the importance of his win by citing the demographics of SC which will not be present in most Super Tuesday states 2) do it to paint Obama as "the black candidate". This can be debated. I don't think mentioning it per se is racist because it is the truth. Jackson's win is the only analogue to Obama's. Not because they are both black but because both won due to overwhelming black support. Overwhelming not meaning 60% but something like 80%.

black people voted for Obama just because he's black? That's what Bill is implying. Black people only vote based on race?

If that's true, why didn't Al Sharpton win 4 years ago?
also why were blacks in SC supporting HRC last year? Did Obama just turn black a few weeks ago?

A huge margin of victory in the SC Primary does not a nominee make.

Clinton could have used Edwards as an example of a candidate who won South Carolina, but eventually lost the nomination. However, he chose to use Jackson -- a black candidate -- and that tells me it IS about race. What Clinton ignores is that Jackson failed to win ONE white state, Obama won white Iowa and tied white New Hampshire. Jackson also was born in South Carolina and finally, it was a caucus, not a primary.

The bottom line, this was about race. Clinton was trying to show that blacks will support Obama, essentially discounting his win. He did that by going back to Jesse Jackson, the black candidate, who won South Carolina but failed to win the nomination.

There is one analogue to Obama's win. It isn't Edwards 15 point win in which he won about half the white vote and a little under two fifths of the black vote. Oh, and race didn't matter? Edwards went from nearly 40% of the black vote to 1% in four years while Obama collected 81%? Give me a break. Demographics matter regardless of how much Obamites want to pretend otherwise.

Obama received 24% of the white vote, which was only about 10% less than Clinton. I bet Jesse Jackson didn't receive that much white vote, eh?

But at least you admit it was about race. Clinton was trying to write-off South Carolina because of the support Obama was receiving from the black community, even though it was his wife who had a double digit lead there among black people a month ago. Yet, as you seem to have glossed over, Clinton ignored the fact Obama has done well in two VERY white states. His support is not just within the black communities and he will prove that when he takes even more white states.

24% is a solid showing but the fact is without black support he would have lost. That is an academic question, though. SC has a lot of black voters and they count as much as white voters. Saying his win doesn't count because of that is as dumb as saying Hillary's NH win doesn't count because of women.

Jackson often received 20-35% of the white vote. Those numbers ring a bell? Jackson won the whitest state in the country for crying out loud!

I mentioned what I think Clinton said this in my last post. It is a fair point that Obama won a very white state and almost won another very white state. Let's be realistic here. Do you think Hillary's spouse would mention that? He is trying to either devalue Obama's win by blaming it on unique demographics or trying to paint him as "the black candidate." Or perhaps a combination of both. Whatever it is there was no reason to expect him to mention IA and NH. Clinton isn't a political analyst. He is a partisan working for his wife.

The one caveat about Iowa and New Hampshire is they were both before race became a factor in the campaign.

He was likely trying to devalue Obama's win by saying it was an anomaly produced by unique demographics in South Carolina.

Essentially saying he does not have appeal beyond the black community. That is untrue. The fact he came in 3rd within the white vote was to be expected. Clinton had been running a campaign there longer than Obama, had a huge lead at one point and Edwards was BORN in South Carolina, WON South Carolina last year and spent the most money in South Carolina. Jesse Jackson led in most polls for a very long time prior to the So. Carolina caucus, WAS from South Carolina and that showed in the results. The difference? Jackson couldn't prove his viability outside of So. Carolina, especially in important primaries.

But that isn't the point, since you've conceded Clinton WAS using race as an issue here. That seems to be the issue, where Clinton is using Obama's race once again against him. So since Obama and Jesse Jackson were both black and they both won South Carolina, they are comparable. Except Clinton seems to bring this up as a PROBLEM for Obama, when it really isn't. Obama won South Carolina because of race, yes, but he also did better than anyone could have expected within the white community. And not only that, he's doing far better in white states than Jesse Jackson really did (outside of Vermont). Obama is not Jesse Jackson and Jackson's fate should not be used as a tool for divisive politics.

I get that Clinton wants his wife to win and I get that he needs to campaign for her. However, when we've gone through a shit storm of racial politics, with both candidates deciding to move away from it, he opens the wound again by stating Obama will only garner black support. That again makes it an issue of race and I'm tired of it. I'll admit, Obama isn't 100% free of this, but listen to his speech last night and you'll see someone wanting to move on from this.

Well, technically it's a Berliner, but that's picking nits. Tabloid is just format, not content.

When I think tabloid.......I think National Inquirer.......and trust me.......the Guardian is no National Inquirer. Now the Daily Mail.......that's a tabloid. BTW, do you live in the UK and are you a daily reader so that you are able to comment on the status of the newpapers here? I think not. :eyes:

It argues a paucity of fact.

lol

it intends to contradict.

I remember being glad to hear the Times went tabloid; here in Chicago, I only read the Sun-Times, since the Trib is a bitch to open on the L. I much prefer the tabloid format, and I've been hoping it catches on with more papers. Like I said: tabloid just means format, not content.

The Guardian is a tabloid. So is the Times. So is the Independent. All are perfectly respectable papers.

(In an argument, don't ask questions you don't know the answer to.)

He was a native son of SC. I would think he would win over Al Gore because of that...but maybe its just me.

With the same level of black support. As to Jackson, there is a thread I posted about his run. He did garner plenty of white support too and even won the whitest state in the country.

him that he was born there.

There was a native-son running, and a senator who had been given the status of the inevitable candid---oh wait...

I voted for him in 2004. I guess that makes me a racist eh? :eyes:

:eyes:

Just like Reagan wasn't trying to appeal to racists by kicking off his campaign in Philadelphia, MS!
Honest!
You can trust the Clintons!
:eyes:

He knows he is The Black Candidate and only compares himself to other Black Candidates like Jackson.

was let surrogates claim the Clintons were race-baiting for his own political gain, when he could have cleared it up instantly. He knows they weren't racist comments. He chose to let it all ride, to weaken the Clintons black support in SC. Just as he chose to ignore the GLBT community complains when he let Mc Clurkin take the mic in SC so he could court the fundie vote.

Michelle Obama was been making comments SINCE THE BEGINNING of the campaign that black voters were going to "wake up" and "get it". Of course that means that any black voter who didn't support him must be wrong. :eyes:

Jackson=Obama

rinse and repeat

Obama=MLK

vs her being the better of the two to actually get things done politically.

But you countinue to make it racist all ya want.

One that may come back to haunt him.
We shall see.

to want to portray yourself as the BLACK candidate. Especially so after running a successful campaign in 98% white Iowa and appealing to white voters very well.

Obama may not be as smart a campaign strategist as the Clintons, but please give him a little more credit than that.

YOu are not allowed to make any observations that may call into question the fact that this may not be the huge win Obama wants you to think it is.

I think the point is that you can say "I will vote for someone regardless of race" and in a caucus you are out in the open, and stuck with your statement.

In a primary you can mark anything you want in secret and nobody will ever know.

Apples and Oranges.... maybe you shouldn't mix them.

Thanks for reading the original post without bothering to comprehend a thing.

have more delegates going into SC?

Gephardt won Iowa. Jackson won 11 primaries and 5 caucuses.He came in 6th in Iowa. At one point Jackson did have more pledged delegates than any other and was the front runner for a good while.

:thumbsup:

about time someone got that.