BC just said that Jesse Jackson won the SC primary in '84 & '88

[HughMoran]

Is that true?

[Colobo]

1. BC is Bill Clinton?

[HughMoran]

17. Yes, Bill Clinton

seems like everyone is talking about him so I just call him BC.

[Barack_America]

2. And if so, your point? Did he also win Iowa?

Sounds like you're trying to push the "black candidate" thing. But I hope that's not the case.

[jackson_dem]

9. He won the whitest state, Vermont, and Alaska too

I agree with you. BC is trying to pin that on Obama. I expected it from her campaign but from Bill himself? Disappointing. :(

We should separate pinning the "black candidate" thing from legitimately noting Obama won big from overwhelmingly support among his ethnic group. This is as valid as pointing out Mormons were half of voters in Nevada and voted overwhelmingly for Romney.

[lurky]

3. Yes.

His implication was what?

[Ken Burch]

28. Slick's implication is that S.C. only counts if herself wins.

And that the party OWES her the nomination.

[Zynx]

4. I think it was a caucus, not a primary.

I could be wrong.

[Ken Burch]

20. It was the way the delegates were chosen in S.C., so it was just as real as a primary woulda been.

You just unconsciously echoed the Democratic establishment spin from that year.

Nobody else's victories were ever considered irrelevant just because they won a caucus instead of a primary.

And all of this once again proves how little anyone named Clinton EVER deserved black support. When it really mattered, that crowd always came down on the side of the bitter white folks in the 'burbs. That's why Bill had a big smile on his face when he signed the racist welfare bill in '96, even though signing it didn't gain him or any other Dem a single vote.

[grantcart]

everytime he speaks he is more patronizing and irrelevent

how sad

[Eric J in MN]

5. Yes, that's what wikipedia says.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jesse_jackson#1984_election

[Tarc]

6. yes he did, which shows how relevant to the process SC is

i.e. none

[Colobo]

10. So Iowa and SC are not relevant... but NH and Nevada are?

[Tarc]

53. No, but the upcoming super tuesday primarys are more important

And that is where the Obamaniacs are in for some bitter and disappointing reality.

[HughMoran]

14. That's what I was thinking.

:shrug:

Edit - I think I spoke reflexively so I'm pulling my words, sorry.

[H2O Man]

21. Wrong.

Saying that "Jesse was a non-factor" suggests that you are not familiar with the '88 campaign.

[HughMoran]

47. Perhaps a poor choice of words

I do remember him being a factor at that time - I sometimes forget about those who did not prevail in the end.

[no name no slogan]

22. Jesse was NOT a non-factor

The Dukakis campaign spent a fair amount of time worrying about the Jesse Factor in 1988-- especially before the southern primaries on Super Tuesday. I worked for Dukakis that primary season, and they were worried about Jackson.

[Ken Burch]

35. And the result in '88 proves it was WRONG to insist on Jesse and the Rainbow being frozen out.

The Dukakis campaign should have EMBRACED the message of the Rainbow, defended the poor and the powerless, defended the role of government in solving problems(you can't refuse to defend it and hope to be successful as a Democratic candidate, since nobody votes for a party that acts like its own core values are a disgrace).

They should have given Jesse all the resources he needed for a massive voter registration campaign for low-income voters and you should have STOOD UP AND FOUGHT BACK against GOP smears. Jesse and progressives bore no blame whatsoever for the '88 defeat.

Lastly, they shoulda got the hook and pulled Clinton offstage ten minutes into his nominating speech for the Duke in '88. Obviously, the man was deliberately giving a terrible speech in order to sabotauge your man's chances in the fall, and thus set the stage for the DLC takeover of the Democratic Party(a takeover that led to most ACTUAL Democrats being put into political exile for almost a decade.)

[no name no slogan]

48. I was pushing for Jesse to be VP on the ticket!

I was only a local level activist, but I saw a hell of a lot of value in the Jackson/Rainbow people. In fact, I later went on to work with many of them on local elections in 1988, and also in 1990, when I was a precinct captain and state delegate for Wellstone (who led Jackson '88 in MN).

You don't need to tell me what Dukakis did wrong in 1988-- I saw Kerry make almost identical mistakes in 2004.

[Ken Burch]

50. Sorry, didn't mean to slam you personally

Please assume I meant "the campaign" rather than you.

My candidate just dropped out and I'm a bit out of sorts, and what I meant to say above didn't some out right.

I've now corrected my original post to depersonalize it.

[no name no slogan]

56. Kucinich supporter, eh? Me too ('04 and '08)

Actually, Dukakis '88 taught me a valuable lesson: the "electable" candidate is seldom electable!

The main reason I backed him then was because I thought he was "electable". He was liberal, but not too liberal. He wanted change, but not too much change.

After he got his ass kicked (after being ahead by 10+ points in August!), I was pretty much done with supporting "electable" candidates. Since then, I've pretty much backed the most liberal, "unelectable" candidates-- with suprisingly good luck, a lot of times, too. After all, Wellstone won in 1990, and he was VERY unelectable.

No hard feelings-- this race depresses the hell out of me in some ways :crazy:

[Ken Burch]

57. Indeed. These days, it depresses me in MOST ways...

n/t.

[H2O Man]

16. clown

[Tarc]

51. How insightful and profound

Mommy must be proud.

[robbedvoter]

7. True. Happened before.

[bluestateguy]

8. Yes

Jackson had unanimous black support, and by then white South Carolinians were voting the the Republican primary.

[unapatriciated]

42. sadly that is what I experienced yesterday.......

when phone banking for Edwards. Tooo many Dem's voted in the re pug primary for my taste. It reminded me of the Reagan primacies. No matter who you support all three candidates are better than what the re pugs have to offer.

[ellisonz]

11. I'm pretty sure SC was a caucus in both those elections.

[Ken Burch]

12. I think it's true for '88, not sure about '84.

Of course, the party did a good job in '88 of spreading the meme that it NEVER counted when Jesse won anything, even when he kicked Dukakis' ass 2 to 1 in Michigan(later, the DLC'ers who owned the Michigan Democratic organization stole have the delegation for Dukakis.)

[DemocratSinceBirth]

13. Jesse Jackson Won Thirteen Primaries And Caucuses In 1988

~

[Ken Burch]

26. ...and in reward for all is victories, in reward for the hundreds of thousands

of passionately enthusiastic activists and volunteers Jesse brought back into the party(a contingent Paul Simon clearly owed his '84 Senate victory to in large measure), the DLC came in and SHOVED JESSE AND HIS PEOPLE BACK OUT INTO THE COLD.

Nothing positive whatsoever came from the killing of the Rainbow Coalition. We never needed to disown the poor and the powerless to win.

[no name no slogan]

34. The Coalition fell on its own sword in some ways

Jackson decided to move away from the grassroots model of the Rainbow Coalition and move the power to the national office. The local chapters basically withered and died because of the lack of support. Had it stayed active at the grassroots level, it may have offered some leverage against the DLC in the 1990s.

[Ken Burch]

40. I realize Jesse himself was partly to blame.

But it's hard to believe he would have just given up like that if the Beltway hadn't made it clear in '88 that his "place at the table" would be bussing the dishes and changing the tablecloth.

In any event, without the Rainbow, the 90's "Democratic" administration ended up being eight years of wasted time. I don't think anybody would seriously argue now that we should ever have a Dem president who governs that far to the hard right again.

[no name no slogan]

43. I agree wholeheartedly. Despite a Dem pres, the 90s were BAD for us

We lost control of congress and governorships-- which probably would not have happened had we kept the focus on the local organizations and grassroots activism.

I was involved with the Coalition after '88 briefly, and they were still a factor. If not for the Rainbow Coalition and its associated activists, Paul Wellstone never would've won in 1990.

Wellstone was the Jackson '88 leader in MN, and he used his contacts and connections from that campaign to prepare for his Senate run. At least we got something out of it.

Regardless of whether we win in the fall, progressive Dems need to stick together and keep an organization going between elections. The PDA has the right idea, but we need more local and state-level chapters to stay afloat.

[cali]

15. Oh puke. Well, Jackson also won my state of Vermont

Clinton's stupid to be doing this. Just assinine to be pointing out that *gasp* Obama is black. What a low creep.

[Barack_America]

18. Wait, did Bill Clinton actually say this? Is he actually trying to liken Obama to Jackson?

If so, that is despicable.

[angie_love]

23. oh nos

Please tell me he did not say this. Why...hes just shooting himself in the foot.

[robbedvoter]

36. It is a compliment in my book.

[Barack_America]

55. But Clinton was only referring to the color of their skin.

Pointing out, once again, that Obama is black and insinuating that a black candidate can't make it.

That's what makes it despicable.

[aquart]

45. Uh, why?

Is Obama NOT a black candidate like other black candidates? Is he so remarkable that there can be no comparison?

Seems like Bill Clinton tells the truth, and that's despicable to Obama supporters.

Are you, perhaps, trying to pretend to yourself that your black candidate is really a...what?

So. We can't say fairytale, tarbaby, Jesse Jackson, black...and the list keeps growing. Obama's people are just going to have to issue their own acceptable dictionary on inauguration day.

[dkf]

19. Cheap Shot Artist Bill. Yup. That sounds like its right up his alley.

He is only going to piss off more people.

[rufus dog]

24. 100% true

Good ole U - Turn Clinton machine! Don't move foward, let's go back to a time when Clinton's were on the rise and had the new ideas.

What a jerk he has become.

[Avalux]

25. That's it Bill; keep trying to tell us Obama is insignificant.

Sick of your crap.

[Unsane]

27. Shameful.

[Pathwalker]

30. Shameshameshameshame. Boy, some people just love that word.

Praise the chicken and pass the gravy!

[joeybee12]

29. Of course, everyone here is slamming Bill Clinton over this, BUT

could we have some perspective on this? What I mean is, did he just come out with it, or did someone say that Barak will be the first black person to win the SC primary, and Bill simply corrected him?

[H2O Man]

33. Perspective:

Bill was asked a question, and gave an answer that had nothing to do with the question. His answer was an attempt to define Barack Obama in terms of Jesse Jackson.

Strange answer. Especially in light of the fact that when Bill was having his troubles, he went to Jesse for personal and public support.

Perspective, indeed.

[joeybee12]

38. Nice snide answer...

...I asked a question, because the the manner in which he made the comment came out mattered. If indeed he just came out with that, then I can't defend it. I was trying to get an answer, but I guess civility is done around here when knee-jerk responses are much more fun.

[H2O Man]

41. Right.

You can't defend it.

[rufus dog]

39. The Question put to bill was, why is it taking two clintons to beat him?

So he could of answered - "what type of question is that, I am out suppurting my wife!" or something similar.

bill answered "Jesse Jackson won SC twice in 84 and 88." WHAT THE FUCK IS THAT!

AGAIN WHAT THE FUCK WAS THAT!

[Ken Burch]

58. Ultimately, "it may TAKE A VILLAGE OF CLINTONS"

n/t.

[knowledgeispwr]

31. Is Bill Clinton trying to point out Obama is black, again?

It also sounds like he is trying to say "SC doesn't count, it has all those black people" (which discards the fact that Hillary Clinton led there comfortably until recently).

[robbedvoter]

37. Is he? gee, if it weren't for Bill, I wouldn't have noticed at all!

[babylonsister]

52. That's exactly what he was saying. I venture to say if he hadn't

opened his yapper his wife would have done better.

[TeamJordan23]

32. Bill answers a non-racial question with a racial answer. I cannot stand this guy. nm

[lurky]

44. I'm officially over Bill.

I always had a soft spot in my heart for him, despite all my misgivings. I just don't feel it anymore.

[IndianaGreen]

46. Bill Clinton lied again! South Carolina did not have primaries back then

it had a caucus.

[HughMoran]

49. He may have said "won South Carolina"

I am not quoting verbatim, but the offense taken here is still appropriate.

[jefferson_dem]

54. And Edwards won it four years ago.

Why did drag out an age-old Jesse Jackson example?

Hmmmm... I wonder. :shrug: