The Trail: A Daily Diary of Campaign 2008

Archives

For Bill Clinton, Echoes of Jackson in Obama Win

By Anne E. Kornblut
NASHVILLE, Tenn. -- So much for moving beyond race.

On Saturday, as Sen. Barack Obama was sweeping up the South Carolina primary, former Pres. Bill Clinton was busy downplaying the significance of Obama's impending win, casting it as a function of the state's demographics and the Illinois senator's heavy African American support. "Jesse Jackson won South Carolina in '84 and '88," Clinton said at a rally in Columbia. "Jackson ran a good campaign. And Obama ran a good campaign here."

It was a sour note on which to end the contentious Democratic race in South Carolina. For her part, Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton barely acknowledged the defeat in her post-primary speech here, except to say that she congratulated Obama on his win. Even when a voter at her rally asked about her defeat, Clinton limited her remarks and made it sound as though she had hardly had a chance. "I'm very very proud to have competed there. It was a close contest going into it," Clinton said. (It was a close race going in, followed by a trouncing on the way out).

Clinton said she anticipated a lengthy nominating process ahead -- a shift for her campaign, which has long maintained that she would have the nomination wrapped up by Feb. 5. "I've always said this contest was going to go for a long time," Clinton said.

Posted at 11:33 PM ET on Jan 26, 2008
Share This: Technorati talk bubble Technorati | Tag in Del.icio.us | Digg This
Previous: A Quick Fundraising Spike Online | Next: Defeated, and Getting Their Dance On


Add 44 to Your Site
Be the first to know when there's a new installment of The Trail. This widget is easy to add to your Web site, and it will update every time there's a new entry on The Trail.
Get This Widget >>


Comments

Please email us to report offensive comments.



I believe it is unacceptable to use the n word in referring to a possible President of the United States. This is not withstanding his mixed parentage. As his Imperial Majesty Emperor Hailel Salesia said at the inaugural of the United Nation thus "Until the colour of a man skin is of no more significant than the colour of his eyes, until there are no more first and second class citizens of any nation, until that day, there will be war! Yes we can all get together! It is spectacular that whereas people of colour may accept and embrace Obama and others like him as their own, the likes of hotnuke2007 would refer to them as nigg*r. May the Good Lord save and not just bless America the land of the brave and the free from the likes of hotnuke2007. Thus saved, America shall live up to its creed and spread out hope of a Pax Humana to the world. GOD SAVE THE PLANET EARTH AND ITS INHABITANTS.

Posted by: johndike | February 23, 2008 11:08 PM

Republician have never done anything nor respected black people so why to be stupid. I am so tired of our history and our worth being discredited and then someone simply says we need to and we are suppose to do it ? Well I feel as though you should earn it. Republicians are both racists and sexist and are little boys using america as their toy.

Posted by: studacee | February 5, 2008 1:39 PM

Of course Bill Clinton is a racist. Nor is Hillary free of the taint. Not only did Hillary sit silently next to and later embrace Suha Arafat after the latter made vile claims last matched in medieval scurrilousness only by the Nazis, i.e. that Jewish doctors infected Palestinian babies [whom Palestinian parents themselves have never hesitated to use as human shields on the way to shihada] with HIV, but she also used coarse anti-Semitic invective against her husband's former campaign manager in 1974.

But like most things Clintonian, the public mini-scandal is designed to divert attention from the private maxi-scandal. The real but unspoken calculus of Clintonian racism is Hillary's taco diplomacy. As seen in Nevada, the Clintons are playing black-Hispanic antagonism to their advantage ("their" advantage because Bill wants to be back in the White House at least as much as Hillary). With the Clintons' true racist stripes now on open public display ("softened" for the media by the regularly scheduled crying spells of the Goldwater Girl in Distress), Hillary Rodham has calculated correctly, if for the basest of reasons and with the most callous of motives, that she indeed does need to seek other allies than black voters if she hopes to win the Democratic nomination and, if she does get the Democratic endorsement, the Presidential election as well.

"By Richard Cohen -- WASHINGTON POST WRITERS GROUP

WASHINGTON, July 19 -- Is Hillary Clinton an antisemite? That is the gist of an accusation that dates to 1974, when, furious about her future husband's loss in his first race for Congress, she allegedly excoriated Bill Clinton's campaign manager, Paul Fray, calling him a "Jew bastard." Fray is backed in his accusation by his wife, Mary Lee, and another campaign worker, Neil McDonald, who was standing outside the door and insists he heard everything."

Posted by: bruce.ellerin | February 2, 2008 10:04 PM

cjkcpahome, clinton did not undergo impeachment for getting a blow job! He was impeached because he committed perjury in a court of law. For your edification, perjury is lying under oath. You need an education in law and recent historical fact.

a gowran

Posted by: arthurgowran | January 31, 2008 5:52 PM

cjkcpahome, you obviously do not know what a racist is if you think the Clinton's remarks were not racist. How do you explain the fact that so many blacks were offended in SC that they overwhelmingly voted for Obama? Also, how do you explain the strong visceral reaction against the Clinton's and their remarks in the American press and in this blog site? You are clearly living under a rock!

agowran

Posted by: arthurgowran | January 31, 2008 5:46 PM

Get Real!!

The Clinton's are not racist!!!!

You are right, the American People should Wake UP, the government spent Millions investigating the Clinton's and all they found wrong was a blow job!! Bush and Chaney have done far worse and we haven't investigated them at all!!!

If President Clinton quotes facts he gets accused of racism.......

He was accused of far worse during his years in office.....and investigated....and they found nothing wrong. Why are you all trying to nail them to the CROSS....are they our SAVIOR???

Posted by: cjkcpahome | January 29, 2008 1:02 AM

filmex - You are right Bill should have not mentioned anything about Jackson, knowing how people would run with it and put any kind of negative spin on it they can find. We all make mistakes. However, I feel he was just pointing out the obvious- For example, say your mother goes to an all woman fitness club and there was a vote as to who would manage the place- Both equally qualified- well HONESTLY who do you think they would choose? And vice versa if it were an all male club???? And why do you call Hillary Shillary? That's very immature.

Posted by: gzep72 | January 28, 2008 8:09 PM

why aren't any of these bonehead "golden children" talking about the real issues of this country...Possibly they should visit a nursing home somewhere...pick up a whole bunch of wisdom...instead of catering to the welfare freeloaders, illegals, muslims, and any other fringe group that has had little or not impact on making this country great...we need to get back to basics ....let the third world countries figure out their own problems....and not finance them...instead of us picking up the tab and giving our future generations a bill they can never repay (by the way, have you looked at this group that will have to repay, most are in rehab due to liberal influence in our schools and elsewhere)...this government is a complete shame........

Posted by: boozydale | January 28, 2008 5:07 PM

Mangoaj,

You can be damn sure I didn't vote for her. The problem with New York State is that we in upstate are outnumbered by the New York City liberals. The love Hillary as the polls show. She is going to take New York. They are falling for her line and are blind to the fact that she only used NY as a stepping stone to the White House. She cares nothing for this State and will forget about it after shes done using us.

Posted by: eheller2 | January 28, 2008 3:36 PM

I am a lifelong Democrat. If Hillary Clinton is the party's nominee, I will vote for the Republican whoever he is. I went to college with Bill Clinton. He was a liar, opportunist and an insincere,self-centered SOB as an eighteen-year-old student. His racist depredations
in SC are nothing new. We've seen similar lies, spins and tactics over his eight-year presidency. Wake up America!! Another Clinton administration will further divide the country and engender such hostility with the Republicans that the weighty problems facing the country (which are long past in need of resolution)--Medicare, health care, Social Security and the economy-- will not be dealt with, to the great detriment of the nation. The Clintons are America's worst nightmare! Does America have amnesia and not recall all the embarrassing nonsense
we experienced over the Clinton's WH tenure? Remember Hillary's health care disaster known for its secret meetings, Travelgate, Bill's denigration of the WH with his philandering with Monica Lewinsky
while in the same House as his "beloved wife," the sale of the Lincoln Bedroom to the highest corporate or lobbyist bidder,
the pardons, no doubt for money and/or favors, of Marc Rich, other wealthy criminals and Bill's own brother, and, as a parting shot at America as they left the WH, the destruction of government computers and property and the stealing of
WH furniture. WAKE UP AMERICA OR WE ARE IN FOR MORE OF THE SAME!

Posted by: arthurgowran | January 28, 2008 3:03 PM

eheller2,
Your state put this carpet bagger there in the first place. You may or may not have voted for her, but what sound explaination can you offer other than a set up!

Posted by: mangoaj | January 28, 2008 12:09 PM

Here's my situation: I live in upstate NY. I was a registered Republican for the past 5 years. Prior to that, I voted mostly Republican. This year, I switched to Independent. I am an Independent fully prepared to vote Democrat this election for a variety of reasons. But I will NOT if Hillary is the nominee. People have to wake up. The Clintons had their time. I she wins, then we get Bill too. It's only January and I'm already sick to death of looking at them. I can't do it for possibly another 8 years! For her to run as the "change" candidate is obsurd. Do you think she is going to bring in fresh new faces to her administration/staff/advisors? We will see the same tired old retreads from his administration--how's that for change? The current administration has done this with retreads from Bush 41. It is time for new faces, new ideas, new energy. It is time for Americans to have some pride in the White House. Imagine being excited for once to watch a White House Press Conference or a State of the Union Address.
Democrats wake up!!! How many more Independents feel as I do? Are you prepared to lose this block of votes? Look past the Clintons--they are "has-beens" and they are irrelavent. They just don't know it yet.

Posted by: eheller2 | January 28, 2008 10:52 AM

If you are a Clinton supporter, you are an enemy of the United States. Every! That's every! Clinton supporter I've met, cannot give me any descent, as well as pro American reason why this treasonous and very dangerous person, like her so called husband and probably VP, should deserve the Whitehouse. I know that she'll probably win, and this concerns me. When people like this can become president we are in very dangerous times! My only advice is, whatever has you hating this once great nation, seek peace and strength with meditation or even the bible. Yes! God is real! He blessed the United States. That's why we have it so good. However, that prosperity may be swinging the other way soon. Compare us to more lesser nations...any questions??? If God isn't wanted "Lord what fools these mortals be" then you're hell bent on hurting this nation's favorable stance with God. You will be dealt with. Not by me, but by your final hour. " A house divided ...."


Posted by: mangoaj | January 28, 2008 10:09 AM

"Oh! Those grapes weren't sweet" It would be more appropriate for the elder statesman to adopt the more respectful approach and move to the side. That way the nation could be treated to the true values the candidates have. But no. He has to dirty the scene. Politics as usual is a thing of the past and he'd better get used to it. Leave the campaign alone ."Your term as president expired a long time ago."

Posted by: ds_cenpak | January 28, 2008 1:38 AM

What's truly hilarious is the way Paul Krugman spent a good part of last year attacking a dead former president for how he ran a subtle race-based southern campaign almost 30 years ago, yet Krugman goes out of his way not to say anything bad about his Clinton buddies and their own 'southern strategy' tactics.

Posted by: ojordan3 | January 28, 2008 12:57 AM

Bill Clinton introduced the race card thing to tar Obama and get Hillary a significant win in South Carolina. The Clintons wanted South Carolina badly that Bill had to throw his statesmanship to the winds. They Bill and Hillary lost big time but they are not resting as Bill again still started stoking the racial prejudice.
He chose to downplay Obama's win by comparing it with the Jesse Jackson's 84 and 88 wins choosing to deny his wins there in 92 and 96 and uncharitably Edwards win in South Carolina in 2004.
What does he want to achieve but to make Obama look like the 'black' candidate as they (Bill & Hillary) believe that such an induced tag will discourage Whites who are in the majority in other states from voting for Obama. Please who is the racist here? How low can the Clintons go. After two tenures at the Whitehouse Bill Clinton
is prepared to squander all his good will to wear the toga of a racist just to secure a 3rd term for himself by pushing Hillary to top Obama unfairly.
What will the Clintons not rationalize. They reationalized their loss in Iowa, they overblew their narrow victories in NH and Nevada and now the rout in South Carolina. Hello people! It is OBVIOUS to many what the Clintons are trying to do. If anybody doesn't see that than they are BLIND. Do not be deceived. Speak with your votes, let them rationalize their loss later. They will rationalize Kennedy's endorsement of Obama in 'A President like my Father'. The Clintons having benefitted much from America (35 years)courtesy of the Democratic Party should give back to the Party by allowing it bring a change to America by stopping this dynasty thing of Bush - Clinton - Bush - Clinton? - Bush?. America is not 3rd World.

Posted by: tzinc2002 | January 28, 2008 12:41 AM

Obama friends, are you sure you support a new tone in Washington?

Posted by: q.tip73 | January 27, 2008 7:25 PM

If I was to bet, I'd say that srwoodsy is one of the paid Clinton campaign blogger. That nonsense sounds like it came right off her campaign website. Have an original idea? As for Sen. Obama flesh out his ideas; more details. As for those of you who laments that Obama only speak of "Change," well, it reminded me of the 1991 campaign. All then Gov. Clinton talked about was "Change" - nothing else. This prompted Pres. George H.W. Bush to snap - "Change! change! That's all they've been talking about...that's all you'll be left with in your pocket when they're done with you."

Posted by: j10r2 | January 27, 2008 6:48 PM

I am so glad that no one is even paying John Edwards any attention. It shows that the white man is no longer relevant and women and black men are taking over. We have run Memphis for 16 years now with Herenton and he has turned this city around for the better. Now black people can run things and get back at these white folk.

Posted by: jlstanly | January 27, 2008 5:32 PM

tacewoman,

Sen. Obama is not Muslim. He's a Christian. He's repeated and openly discussed his faith. While he was raised in the Muslim faith, he's long converted to Christianity. Not that he matters to me; but obviously in 2008 some STILL won't vote for you because of your gender (Sen. Clinton), race (Sen. Obama), or religion (Gov. Romney). DAMN SHAME! While I don't necessarily believe Obama will lose these primaries simply because he's black, neither am I naive to think that Pres. Clinton's remarks weren't a veiled attempt at awakening the worse in people. It all sounds like another page out of the late Lee Atwater playbook. Indeed, the Clintons are proving their critics right - THEY WILL SAY ANYTHING, DO ANYTHING TO GET THEIR WAY.

I

Posted by: j10r2 | January 27, 2008 5:32 PM

davestickler, if you think that Clinton meant that SC "votes for anyone who's black" you'd better go back and parse his words again. If you think that he meant that Obama won SC because of the voting along racial lines, well, I'm not sure if that message would be called spin if it agrees with every media assessment and all exit polling. If it is unreasonable to point out that that support won't be as strong in states to come due to their demographics, you'd best place some complaint calls to CNN and vow to stop reading washingtonpost.com, as that has been their message all day.

Posted by: kemurph | January 27, 2008 5:22 PM

Hillary lost me the first day of her candidacy when she claimed she "was in it to win it". That's precisely her focus...it's all about winning, not about what's best for the country. Not that I would have taken her as a serious candidate, particularly not representing women such as myself, when she stood SILENTLY beside her husband while he humiliated her and the presidency of the greatest nation on earth because he couldn't keep his pants zipped! Why are all the democrats not able to mention that as part of the Clinton presidency? Did you ALL take an oath of silence?? When Hillary cried and said she didn't want to see us go back to where we were...I AGREE! That means, we don't want to go back to corrupt Clinton embarrasment in office.
I admit that he wasn't the first democrat to act inappropriately in the Oval office, just one of the few to get caught. But, I have to assume that when you check the Democrat box on your voter registration, it must come with a huge dose of amnesia.
Having said that, I also think Obama needs to be asked some serious questions. Such as: while I do not totally disagree with his right to be sworn into office with his hand on the Koran, since that is what he believes in, what happens if we need to take serious military action against Islamist or Muslm enemies of this country? Will his religious convictions affect his ability to do what is best for the millions of Americans he represents?
Personally, I do not feel that either of these candidates have the "right kind" of experience for the job of president. Obama and other legislators in this race are not the best qualififed simply because they've been transplanted to a Washington D.C. address. And what experience does Hillary have that she's so proud of? She was a lawyer...and not exactly one with a lot of integrity. (Did the amnesia wipe out Whitewater?) Then, let's see...she picked out decor in the governor's mansion, then the china pattern in the White House. Then spends years in the Senate expounding on issues like an oracle who knows it all?
Her "experience" is something we can do without more of and Obama's "change" could be more than we all bargained for.
Wake up and ask the tough questions of your candidates!

Posted by: tacewoman | January 27, 2008 4:56 PM

Hillary lost me the first day of her candidacy when she claimed she "was in it to win it". That's precisely her focus...it's all about winning, not about what's best for the country. Not that I would have taken her as a serious candidate, particularly not representing women such as myself, when she stood SILENTLY beside her husband while he humiliated her and the presidency of the greatest nation on earth because he couldn't keep his pants zipped! Why are all the democrats not able to mention that as part of the Clinton presidency? Did you ALL take an oath of silence?? When Hillary cried and said she didn't want to see us go back to where we were...I AGREE! That means, we don't want to go back to corrupt Clinton embarrasment in office.
I admit that he wasn't the first democrat to act inappropriately in the Oval office, just one of the few to get caught. But, I have to assume that when you check the Democrat box on your voter registration, it must come with a huge dose of amnesia.
Having said that, I also think Obama needs to be asked some serious questions. Such as: while I do not totally disagree with his right to be sworn into office with his hand on the Koran, since that is what he believes in, what happens if we need to take serious military action against Islamist or Muslim enemies of this country? Will his religious convictions affect his ability to do what is best for the millions of Americans he represents?
Personally, I do not feel that either of these candidates have the "right kind" of experience for the job of president. Obama and other legislators in this race are not the best qualififed simply because they've been transplanted to a Washington D.C. address. And what experience does Hillary have that she's so proud of? She was a lawyer...and not exactly one with a lot of integrity. (Did the amnesia wipe out Whitewater?) Then, let's see...she picked out decor in the governor's mansion, then the china pattern in the White House. Then spends years in the Senate expounding on issues like an oracle who knows it all?
Her "experience" is something we can do without more of and Obama's "change" could be more than we all bargained for.
Wake up and ask the tough questions of your candidates!

Posted by: tacewoman | January 27, 2008 4:52 PM

Please put up or shut up, Ann.

RE: The Clinton campaign "has long maintained that she would have the nomination wrapped up by Feb. 5."

Please provide documentation of this dubious claim (directly contradicted by Clinton in your very next sentence -- i.e., you just also called her a liar). Unsourced gossip, whispered in your ear by anonymous little birdies doesn't count.

Posted by: oaguabonita | January 27, 2008 2:49 PM

so lets take everything you say at face value and say that obama is in fact, "racist scum".

how does that make you any better by calling him a ****** who aint fit to clean my shoes? you don't find that in the least bit hypocritical?

look - there are plenty of people that dont like obama. and plenty who don't like him merely because of his race. and thats certainly their right, no matter what i or anyone else might think about it.

so if that is you, and i think it might be, just man up and say that you don't like him because he is black, and not go off into these random rants and tirades.

Posted by: perryair | January 27, 2008 2:15 PM

kemurph, that's because Clinton failed to mention John Edwards in 2004, for example. The comparison was clearly drawn to suggest not that random people win in South Carolina without getting the nomination, but rather to suggest that South Carolina votes for pretty much anyone who's black -- the spin that the Clinton campaign had all but announced they would be putting on the election results in the days leading up to the primary.

Of course, that spin isn't accurate. Al Sharpton lost badly in 2004, and Jesse Jackson got a boost from the fact that South Carolina was his home state as much as he did from racial considerations. But, to anyone following the campaign over the last few days and weeks, it's pretty clear how Clinton was trying to spin this, and a lot of us don't appreciate his attempt to patronizingly marginalize the winner of the Iowa caucuses and a narrow second-place finisher in New Hampshire and Nevada as "just the candidate of black people".

Posted by: davestickler | January 27, 2008 2:14 PM

Barack Obama is just like Jesse Jackson....the same way Steve Nash is just like Larry Bird, Wes Welker is just like Don Beebe, Donovan McNabb is just like Michael Vick..........

Posted by: ojordan3 | January 27, 2008 2:08 PM

When Obama won Iowa, the Clinton campaign spun it by comparing to past winners of Iowa, saying Obama wasn't getting the bounce they did, etc. Why did everyone not cry foul then? Is it fair game to compare Obama to white past candidates but not to black past candidates? I think you all (along with the media) need to do some soul searching about where the racism lies here. I think many of you are reacting shamefully based on race, and you are inherently assuming black is not beautiful by saying things like Obama is being painted as "the Black candidate".

Posted by: kemurph | January 27, 2008 2:03 PM

I'm disappointed in former Pres. Bill Clinton. I liked him at the time as President. But this business of associating Jesse Jackson's name with Sen. Barak Obama's race in South Carolina smacks of invoking racism. Rev. Jackson and Sen. Obama can each stand on their own two feet. I had nothing against Rev. Jackson in the 80s and I have nothing against him now. But, Sen. Obama has never been the "Black Candidate" to me (I'm not a black person fyi) -- he has been the freshest face out there, and more power to him.

Posted by: itsmecatherine | January 27, 2008 1:59 PM

So many of the hateful comments about the Clintons are simply irrational race baiting done by Obama's own partisans. It isn't any more moral when you do it than if the Clinton's were actually guilty of it.
Lots of folks hate the Clintons for a variety of reasons. The lefties hate the fact that New Yorkers in general are not believing that the terrorist attacks were caused by this government. New Yorkers were attacked and its quite right that Hillary isn't taking the pacifist route.
In order to win with their underexperienced and unqualified candidate who never even tries to give his positions on a variety of issues, the partisans must villify the Clintons and use race baiting as their trump card.
It is obvious after Obama's silly comments about invading Pakistan and his inconsistent attitude about the war that the lefties should have chosen better if they really want a chance to get into the WH.
Obama is a talented obsfuscator and speech contestant, but shows no ability to develop policy or parry intellectually when it comes to this country's problems. By choosing to demonize our most successful Democratic team he and his ilk and happily destroying whatever chance the Dems had to win this election.
I'm sure that some of these partisans are actually Republicans who are savoring the possibility of an Obama candidacy.
When Hillary simply stated that it took a President who knew the ropes to get civil rights through an uncooperative Congress- a valid point for her to make- she was roasted by the ignoramuses of the Obama camp. Her comments in no way were intended, nor did they, put down King...they merely noted that experienced governmental leadership made the difference in bringing MLK's ideas into everyday life throughout America including a very uncooperative South.
That's a valid point to consider, but Obama and his crazies ignored the point made and piled on to exploit their own inherent racism.

Posted by: srwoodsy | January 27, 2008 1:54 PM

For all those saying Sen. Clinton has "experience" and Sen. Obama does, please tell me which one she has. Enlightment me.

Again, if being Arkansas' First Lady for 8 years and another 8 years as U.S. First Lady - she is (no, it's not sexism, it's a fact). She's essentially spent most of her 2 terms in the Senate as a back bencher (undistinguished)- like Sen. Obama, until she didn't to run for President. For his part, I'm waiting for Sen. Obama to flesh out his views on the pressing issues of our day - health care, economy, national security. While I agree that we need a different type of politics in Washington, it has to be more than "Change." Again, I see folks getting lost in the sideshows. This election should have been about the issues. The Clintons are neither racists, nor is Sen. a flash-in-the pan, cokehead, Reagan-admirer. Wake up people, look at all the candidates - Republicans and Democrats and vote for the candidate who you think can best get us out of the mess we've found ourselves in. Our country needs it.

Posted by: j10r2 | January 27, 2008 1:51 PM

Bill Clinton fail to mention that by the time Jesse Jackson won S. C. the nominee for the party had already been decided. So I really don't see the comparison.

Posted by: pumquin | January 27, 2008 1:50 PM

Somebody should ask Bill Clinton how Jesse Jackson fared in Iowa.
How Jackson polled in head-to-head matchups against likely GOP candidates.
How his national numbers looked.

Not like Obama's, that's for sure. The poll results over time are especially striking. Obama is just going up and up, while Hillary has been on a long slide that frankly looks a lot like the curve of Rudy Giuliani.
But then, Hillary IS the Democrats' Giuliani.

Posted by: Bud0 | January 27, 2008 1:47 PM

Thank you Bill. I was leaning towards Obama, your remarks clinched it. I do NOT want you anywhere near the White House. If you and your wife are nominated - I will vote GOP for the first time in my life..

Posted by: aestern | January 27, 2008 1:19 PM

The Clinton's know how to spin a loss and story better than anyone. I always wonder how individuals can really believe Bill and Hillary can feel their pain when they have lived a priveledged lifestyle. Hillary does not know what it is like to be poor and afford college. Afterall, she was able to attend Yale while the majority of Americans lived paycheck to paycheck. The Clintons used the American people to get elected and than cash in on millions. They have never had to live in poverty and it amazes me that so many Americans fall for their load of crap!! After Bush 1, Clinton 1, Bush 2, I am exhausted and do not want a Clinton 2.

Posted by: Skinsfan1978 | January 27, 2008 1:15 PM

dear bill and hillery...we've been there and done that and we are NOT going to do it again...there is going to be NO "clinton,the second act"
fegetabadit

Posted by: mcdcl2 | January 27, 2008 1:14 PM

The idea that Obama is unfit for office is a myth. He's smart enough that he was president of the Harvard Law Review -- the most prestigious position for law students around the country -- and has been described by Harvard professors as one of the brightest people to come through Harvard in the last few decades.

In Illinois, his signature legislation included the most sweeping ethics reform in many, many years, as well as criminal justice reforms that initially met stiff resistance but ended up passing easily, and an expansion of health care coverage -- all despite being in the minority.

Obama opposed the decision to invade Iraq and, under no obligation to do so as he planned a Senate run, publicly declared as much at a time when opposition to the war was deeply unpopular.

In the US Senate, he's passed ethics reform, helped secure loose Russian weapons, helped plan government response to a potential flu epidemic, and passed the "Google for government" bill.

If the measure of a candidate's readiness is their past record of success, I don't think there's any way you can argue that Obama isn't ready. I certainly challenge you to come up with a comparable list of concrete accomplishments made by Mrs. Clinton in her "35 years of service".

Look, experience is nice. But experience is a far worse predictor of success in the White House than is past success. So don't make experience a surrogate for competence, because it isn't.

And that's not even getting into the whole question of honesty and respect for democracy.

Posted by: davestickler | January 27, 2008 1:13 PM

perryair:

I don't know about you, but I see things as they really are. While they are a minority among blacks, just as they're a minority among whites, there are blacks who are disgusting, racist scum. Barack Obama is one such. The FACTS as I laid them out bear this out. If you choose to ignore that, so be it. If you choose to be offended by my using the term NIGG*R to describe such a lowlife, racist piece of sh*t, so be it. Personally I couldn't care less who's offended by it. For if they're offended by that, and NOT by Obama's BLATANT racism and disgusting tactics in trying to paint the Clintons as racists for political gain, then I'd have to say they're just as much NIGG*RS as he is, whether they're white, black, brown, red or yellow.

You want to believe Obama's some saint, go for it. To me, he's just another in a long line of lying, lowlife RACIST scum who have fooled people into believing he's anything but. And again, to me, that makes him a NIGG*R. I won't bother with the tired old cliche of telling you I have plenty of black friends who know I'm no racist. None of that matters. I don't matter. What matters is that this racial huckster has played the HILLARY-HATING RIGHT-WING MEDIA like a fiddle, playing the race card at every opportunity, spouting Right-Wing Repuglikkkunt talking points about the Clintons every chance he's gotten, and is NOT FIT TO SHINE MY SHOES.

Posted by: hotnuke2007 | January 27, 2008 1:00 PM

you know, its probably not the best idea to spend an hour crafting [and i use that term loosely] a 15 paragraph post about how someone is a racist, just to say at the end that that person is a "lowlife such and such who ain't fit to shine my shoes."

i mean.. it sort of demeans the whole purpose behind all of those words splattered up in front of it.

Posted by: perryair | January 27, 2008 12:50 PM

I want to thank Formersubscriber, very well put! If you aren't employed by a major newspaper, you should consider making some calls. Hit the nail spot on its head!

(hotnuke2007, however, needs to check his meds, scary..)

Posted by: fnlorrain | January 27, 2008 12:39 PM

Well, I have a Ph.D degree and I will vote for Hillary Clinton. Because I am thinking with my head and not heart. I, myself, an idealist and my eyes well every time I hear Obama's 2004 speech (now his ads have snippets of the 2004 democratic convention speech). He is a great guy and has a great political future. But now is not the time to get carried away with change, ideals, coming together etc. We need someone who can spell out the details, fight the fight, and get things done for the public. Having great ideas won't mean anything unless they get executed and Obama does not have the experience to roll his sleeves for some serious cleaning up that we need to do in Washington

Posted by: skondragunta | January 27, 2008 12:28 PM

Um, if you want change, why do you think Obama represents it more than Hillary? Really, he has done everything she has done in his short time in opffice. He has gone along with the establishment, or avoided taking a vote that required him to actually show he is against the establishment.

My impression is that as dynamic and intelligent as Obama is, he was always more acceptable because he wasn't about being 'Black.' Now suddenly he is?

Look, call a spade a spade.

Bill Clinton was nbot being racist, he was answering the unspoken but very loud race oriented question about Obama's 'blackness' being able to pull certain Southern States when perhaps a white person couldn't. He cited good examples with Jesse Jackson. And with the white voted divided, I don;t know that it is true.

I ask you, if its OK for Black Americans to vote along race, why isn;t ok for anyone else?

DON'T let the media turn it into a race issue if it isn't supposed to be one, people. They are setting you up for when their real masters in the GOP are running against Obama.

I like Obama, but I haven't forgotten Tennessee in 2006. Hillary DID get 19% of the black vote. That's pretty big.

Posted by: TortFeaser | January 27, 2008 12:20 PM

Bill is not learning from his mistakes. Beacuse of him HRC lost SC. Now this guy is comparing Obama's win with Jackson's. By doing that he is implying that Obama will win few states and will not be the candidate for President.

People please do not listen to Bill. He will do anything to make history and try to put his wife in the White House. Obama or whoever becomes President what they need is good people around them. HRC will bring all old Clinton folks the way Bush did by bringing in his father's.

So people watch out do not get bogged down with technicalities. Vote for the person you like. Do not expect HRC will make Healthcare cheaper or Economy better. We need new breed of leadership not the same old. I think Obama will do a better job than HRC. If you need a women president wait for a better candidate. Don't vote for plastic, artificial, polarizing wHRC just because she is a women. It is time for women to be president of America but please let that not be HRC.

Thank You.

Posted by: alfa2 | January 27, 2008 12:15 PM

CommonSense12 works for the Billary campaign. Who else would repeat, with such conviction, the fear mongering which the Clinton campaign uses. Come on Bruce, join the future. There is a place for you as well.

Posted by: CitizenXX | January 27, 2008 12:14 PM

The Clintons have lost me forever.
They crossed the one line that should never have been crossed in Democratic Primary politics, race.

As someone who grew up around southern politics, I knew that everytime Bill Clinton justified the Clinton slip in the SC polls on 'race voting for race', he was basically calling Senator Obama the nasty, age old, Southern pejorative for African Americans.

He was trying to build a Jesse Jackson caricature out of Senator Obama; someone who could only garner support primarily from African American voters. The old South Carolina Caucus was nothing like this record setting turnout primary. The comparison was a distortion in itself. That Bill Clinton immediately compared Senator Obama to Jesse Jackson after the defeat was conceded, was glaring, public proof.
They will do anything and everything to win.
Theirs is a politics of race baiting, identity and special interest politics that belongs in the dustbin of history.

Shame on the Clintons.

Fade into history with some grace.

Character matters.

Congradulations Senator Obama.

Posted by: veeve | January 27, 2008 12:11 PM

I am starting to get fed up with the Clinton campaign. It shouldn't have been even close, but now Barack Obama hits the voters' nerve better than Hillary Clinton does. And what happens? She taps into the popularity of Bill. The campaign is in trouble and all she can come up with is hubby's help and tears? Hell she needs to stand up with her own ideas when she is (or may be) President. Not turn to hubby. He had his presidency.

You can find links on Europe's reaction to the promary results here:

http://tpzoo.wordpress.com/2008/01/27/hello-from-europe-358-days-of-bush-left/

Posted by: old_europe | January 27, 2008 12:05 PM

Bill Clinton disses Obama most recently by comparing him to Jesse Jackson, thereby implying that Obama was a mere SC flash-in-the-pan.

Of comparable bad taste is the implicit racism of the mainstream media when pack journalists bay that Obama is following the Clintons' script by marginalizing himself as today's black candidate playing to African Americans. For such "analyses" bespeak subtle bigotry as their subtext.

Posted by: FirstMouse | January 27, 2008 12:02 PM

The ENTIRE controversy over race was engineered and manufactured by the Obama campaign in order to fuel a win in South Carolina. Obama had seen the writing on the wall, namely that if he didn't win in South Carolina, a state whose Democratic Primary voters were composed of nearly 50% African Americans, he would be seen as nothing more than a boutique candidate on the order of Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson. He understandably realized that Hillary was garnering the majority of black support, despite the fact he himself was black, and felt if he was going to have ANY chance at being nominated, he had to win South Carolina. His staff then decided they were going to play the race card, and did so. They sent their surrogates out immediately following the New Hampshire primary, including Professor Michael Eric Dyson of Georgetown (a major advocate of the Obama campaign who speaks on Obama's behalf on every major political show on TV), who began questioning whether the win by Hillary in New Hampshire was NOT because she had swayed voters in that state based on their belief that she was a more experienced, more qualified, and more genuine candidate, but rather that they, the voters, had simply voted for her and not Obama because he was black. That same evening, Jesse Jackson, Jr. (a Senior Advisor to Obama's Campaign) went on MSNBC and made the following comment (and I'm paraphrasing here, but it's pretty accurate and you're welcome to google for the YouTube video that shows it) that Hillary's "tears" needed to be examined in light of the "Fact" (and fact is a complete falsehood on his part as he hasn't got a clue as to whether this is factual) that Hillary never cried about Katrina. He made this remark three times, and its clear intent was to say HILLARY CLINTON DOESN'T CARE ABOUT BLACK PEOPLE.

This charge of RACISM, leveled at the New Hampshire voters who supported Hillary was a veiled attempt at painting ALL of Hillary Clinton's supporters (at least the white ones), in fact ALL Democrats who DIDN'T support Obama, as RACISTS. They then manufactured a controversy over Hillary's statement about MLK, which was ONLY made in response to OBAMA'S likening HIMSELF to MLK and JFK, claiming she had "DISSED" the man. Nothing could be further from the truth, but the media, nearly all of whom hate Hillary to the core, picked up on this in a heartbeat, and were defacto Obama surrogates in their effort to paint Hillary Clinton as, AT BEST, someone who wasn't sympathetic to blacks concerns or sensibilities.

The Obama campaign then went on to use Bill Clinton's words, where he OBVIOUSLY criticized Obama for his claim that he had been ADAMANTLY opposed to the Iraq War CONSISTENTLY TO THE SAME DEGREE, since before it started, and tried to paint those remarks as racist as well by misquoting Bill, twisting his words, and taking them completely out of context to suggest Bill Clinton had suggested Obama's ENTIRE campaign (and thereby the entire notion that a Black man could ever be president) was a "Fairy Tale". The TRUTH, though, is that Bill had said, CLEARLY AND CONCISELY, that Obama's claim that he had been consistent on his views about the war was a "Fairly Tale". Now, some could argue this is an unfair criticism of Obama, and that would have been a valid, if incorrect opinion in my view. However, they didn't do this. Instead, they clipped the speech by Bill to include NONE of the context of what he had said, and simply used the words "Give me a break, this whole thing is a Fairy Tale" as their quote from Bill, and then claimed he had said this in the context of saying Obama's entire campaign, his entire dream of becoming president, was a "Fairy Tale". This was done in order to anger blacks, to incite them to believe Bill Clinton was a closet racist. And it worked beautifully. Obama's lame claim that he had nothing to do with it was EASILY refuted by the MEMO that had been released by HIS CAMPAIGN which noted Bill's remarks, and did EXACTLY what I stated above in trying to claim Bill had made the claim Obama's campaign was a "Fairy Tale." Not to mention the remarks by Michelle Obama to that same effect at a mostly black event where she is quoted as having said, "That win in Iowa ain't no Fairy Tale" Another surrogate of Obama's, a representative of South Carolina named Bakari Sellers, went on to make the same claim the very MORNING of the Primary, although he was chastised about it by David Shuster.

The simple fact is, the Obama campaign started it all, and continued it non-stop. Every chance they got they tried to point the finger at the Clintons and say, "Hey, my opponents are race-baiting, people, isn't that despicable considering I'm a Black Man?" Anyone who watched the coverage over the past two weeks who didn't come away seeing that is simply blind. Blinded by either their own racial hatred, their ridiculous fantasies of a Utopia Obama would create, or their Repuglikkkunt-inspired and COMPLETELY baseless hatred of the Clintons.

Now, if you want to dismiss all this, you're welcome to. But it is completely and utterly factual. If you'd like links to all of the stuff, including the comments by Dyson, Jackson, and Michelle Obama, they're on YouTube. The Memo is at HuffingtonPost.com. Again, you can dismiss it, but you're simply lying to yourself. Obama, and his campaign, in a desperate bid to stay alive in this contest, PLAYED THE RACE CARD. And while it's garnered him a great deal more support among blacks, he's also realized he's lost a great deal of support among women, whites and Hispanics because of it.

It was bad enough that he pulled such a lowlife move. The fact he's lied about it continuously, and is now having his campaign, his surrogates, and his supporters spread these vicious, EVIL, and completely phony stories about voter intimidation on the part of Clinton supporters shows me there is NO depth to which he won't go. People claim Hillary acts as if she's owed this nomination. I say they're blind. Hillary has NEVER acted like that. The Media has painted that narrative for a year and she's thoroughly rejected it. OBAMA IS THE JERK WHO ACTS LIKE HE'S OWED THE PRESIDENCY. He acts, and his campaign acts, like any attack on him is an attack on blacks.

Now, I know that many blacks who are racist (and trust me, there are just as many racist blacks as there are whites proportionally), and many other blacks who aren't, but are no more interested in delving into the details of the campaigns as the majority of Americans, will be swayed by all of this nonsense that has been fueled by the Obama campaign and their defacto surrogates (the entire Hillary-Hating media). But they better remember one thing. WHITES MAKE UP THE MAJORITY OF THIS NATION, AND EVEN THE VAST MAJORITY OF THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY. Obama may find he's won the battle (South Carolina), and lost the war.

I think it's too late for Obama, his surrogates, or advocates to close the Pandora's box they opened with their despicable lies and BS. There might be a chance, but I don't think there is. And frankly, I don't want there to be a chance anymore. For while I have been calling for a Hillary Clinton / Barack Obama ticket for the past two years, if Hillary were to put this man on the ticket I not only wouldn't be able to vote for her, but would in fact be forced out of principle to actively work against her campaign. To me, Barack Obama is a lying, lowlife, RACIST TRAITOR to everything this nation holds dear. The fact he's been able to convince so many morons otherwise doesn't surprise me though. Bush did the same for a while, and I was NEVER fooled by his lies and BS either. To me, Barack Obama is nothing more than a lowlife RACIST NIGG*R, not fit to shine my shoes, let alone be my president.

Posted by: hotnuke2007 | January 27, 2008 12:02 PM

Again, we see that the people agree with Sen. Obama, in that we do not need someone in the White House who can play the game better. We need a person in the White House who brings a totally different game to the table.

As has been mentioned here earlier, Sen. Clinton is a divisive candidate. A candidate, who does not increase the size nor ideological scope of the Democratic Party, but only pulls it apart, allowing the GOP candidate a window of hope for a victory in November.

And let us not kid ourselves. The GOP knows this. They know that if they were to run against Sen. Obama, the chances of pulling together the votes needed for a win, is almost impossible, due to Sen. Obama and his ability to pull together people from diverse areas.

Yet, with a Billary candidate to run against, the GOP knows that they can pull together and consolidate their party and its supporters. Hillary is their only shot at maintaining the White House, and they know this. This was made clear by the way that they were unified during their last debate in their attacks on Hillary, and how they can beat her.

Posted by: CitizenXX | January 27, 2008 12:01 PM

URGE ALL FLORIDA TO VOTE IN THE DEMOCRATIC PRIMARY TUESDAY

It is so very important that everyone feel as if their voice is heard.

The news on the economy is very bad, in fact it is serious. I feel our priority must be, who as President is the best person now to help lead us forward and attack this serious problem and all the other problems we have from the disastrous results of the past seven years from this incompetent, and (corrupt) administration in Washington, D.C. I feel that choice must be Hillary Rodham Clinton.

Let me remind us all of just a few of the many serious matters.

Our outstanding public debt as of January 20, 2008 was 9.19 Trillion Dollars, and has been increasing at the rate of 1.43 Billion dollars per day since September 29, 2006. Ref: ( www.brillig.com/debt_clock ).

There is a headline from the Associated Press for January 17, 2008 in many newspapers which states: (Inflation Hits 17-year high).

Job growth is declining at the same time the population is increasing. In 2007 the average monthly job growth nationwide was 111,000 jobs, compared to 188,600 in 2006, and 211,800 in 2005. Ref: Bureau of Labor Statistics, 2007.

The housing market has taken a serious downturn. Mortgages nationwide in foreclosure action have now reached a record of 1.7% of the total. We have just had the sixth monthly increase in a row, and now at 1.7% we are at the highest level on record since 1979. Ref: www.AmericanProgress.org , C.E. Weller, January 9, 2008.

It was reported publicly this past week that sales of previously owned single-family homes fell 13% nationwide in 2007, the biggest drop in 25 years.

From Iraq, we are not getting the whole story. According to data from Eric Alterman and his research article: (Think Again: No Iraq News Is not Good News), January 3, 2008 www.AmericanProgress.org , he reports that the number of U.S. troops killed this past year (2007) in Iraq was 899, the deadliest year since the invasion. The number of Iraqi civilians killed in 2007 was 16,232, up from the previous year of 12,371.

As a nation, we have a multitude of problems to work on. And the President we elect on November 4th has to lead us all on this with an extreme sense of urgency, and must start with full force on day one if not before.

Candidate Barack Obama is an outstanding gentleman, wants the best for our country, but his communication seems mostly great rhetoric with glowing phrases of inspiration and empowerment more suited to that of a Sunday morning megachurch.

Hillary Rodham Clinton is giving us reality with good hard hitting specifics, excellent action plans, good details and great feelings of confidence. (I refer you to her website of www.hillaryclinton.com, and go to the Issues section, and Speeches of the Newsroom section). This is the person I want as my President.

I say:(fight on Mrs. Clinton. You are doing fine) Thank you.

Common Sense - Bruce


Posted by: CommonSense12 | January 27, 2008 11:58 AM

It is shockingly obvious that the pro-Clinton comments on this board are merely taking her talking points and putting them up as thought they were original thoughts. Shame on the slimy Clintons! How much are they paying these hacks?

Posted by: drankland | January 27, 2008 11:54 AM

Let's get some hard facts here. Compare Jesse Jackson to Obama in South Carolina.

In 1988 there were caucuses. Approximately 40,000 people came out. Jackson won about 60%. That is 24,000 votes.

In 2008 there was a primary. Approximately 550,000 people came out. Obama won 55%. That is about 290,000 votes. Obama won about 25% of the white vote, which was less than half of the total. That gives him 25% of about 250,000 votes, or 62,500 white votes.

Obama received 2.5 times as many white votes in 2008 as Jackson got total votes in 1988.

Obviously, there are striking parallels, at least to Bill Clinton.

Posted by: steveboyington | January 27, 2008 11:43 AM

This is one of the most ridiculous news articles I've read in a while. She acknowledged Obama's victory, she moved on - whats the sour note on that?? That's exactly what Obama did in NH, and what he didn't do at all in NV. So, why the double-standard? Step back for a while and think why you wrote this? Whats wrong with Hillary that even the press cant be objective about this? I mean - who's camp called her the Senator from Punjab !!

Posted by: ashu.tandon | January 27, 2008 11:14 AM

To paraphrase Clinton flamethrower, James Carville: Drag a dollar bill through a trailer park and you're likely to pick up...a soiled Bill and Hillary Clinton clinging for dear life. South Carolina's strong rebuke of Bill and cHill's disgusting, racist-inciting tactics was stunning--and delicious. Who knew they'd let their lowdown strategy be transparent. Here's their unwitting gift to Democrats: No longer can you say you didn't know the Clintons would do anything, say anything, including revealing the lie of racial tolerance in the Democratic Party, to seize power. The more people get to know these two, the more they say, "Blech, gack, and what were we thinking to vote for womanizing liar Bill in the first place?" Don't make the same mistake twice by voting for the cold and equally void-of-principles Mrs. Clinton. If they weren't so scary, they'd be pathetic.

Posted by: CTSKINSFAN2 | January 27, 2008 11:11 AM

I was so excited with the depth of the Democratic candidates, and am pained that the Clintons have turned this into a mudfest. I am a middle-aged Irish Catholic woman who grew up in Massachusetts. I join many others here, democrats, independents and republicans, who have said they will not vote for Hillary under any circumstance. It goes to the point that she is completely incapable of uniting people when she has succeeded in sending life-long democrats running. If she is the nominee I will vote Republican or not at all. I refuse to reward her for her mean-spirited, nasty campaign; she seems to enjoy it best when it is at its nastiest. It is nothing less than stunning that she has managed to turn a very happy democratic party proud at the incredible strength of its candidates into into a very pained party. Enough. Enough.

Posted by: sheilameehan | January 27, 2008 10:46 AM

WHEN I LOOK AT BARACK OBAMA

When I look at Barack Obama, I not only wonder why every Black person in America isn't supporting him, but why they aren't jumping up and down with glee at the opportunity. I've had many people tell me--both Black and White--that I'm just supporting Obama because he's Black. True, I am supporting Obama because he's Black, but not ONLY because he's Black. I'm supporting Barack Obama because in spite of being blessed with Black skin, and all the disadvantages that entails, this brother has managed to rise head and shoulders above the very best this society has to offer. That not only empowers him, but it also allows Black youth to embrace their Blackness with a lot more genuine pride. It allows them say, and more importantly, think, "Yes, I'm Black, and you're damn right I am somebody! I'm the product of a great and resilient people. That's very important for young people, because as the Bible points out, "As a man thinketh in his heart, so is he."

So, no, I don't support Obama just because he's Black-I support him because he's Black, on top of all his other fine qualities. Both Jesse and Sharpton are also Black, and I didn't support either of them. But this is different. When Barack Obama stepped upon the world stage, I could feel a change in the air, like something important had just happened, or a significant presence had just entered the room. I felt like, for the briefest moment the world stood still, then I looked up to see a lone figure standing on the horizon.

And I wasn't alone--White folks across this land also felt it. When the change started to take hold, I noticed that in places that would have met Martin with attack dogs and fire hoses, White people were jumping up and down, smiling and singing--some of them with tears in their eyes--straining just to touch this young Black man. That's when I knew it was happening--I knew a change was coming eventually, but not like this.

He came fast, and out of nowhere like a thief in the night-far from the Messiah, but like a man who knew his time had come. Then, like in that Phil Collins song, I could feel it comin' in the air, oh Lord! It was clear there was something different going on here--something that's been in the cards every since that first slave looked to the sky and said, "Please help us, dear Lord."

Now, I not a religious fanatic, so I'm not about to sit here and preach you a sermon. But I am spiritual, and I'm telling you, Obama's arrival is not an accident. I don't know why, but some things are just meant to be-and if you look at them in hindsight, you can see it! When you look back on Martin and Malcolm, it's clear they were meant to be. I don't know why, but some men are just put on Earth to fulfil a plan. You can laugh at me if you want to, but I'm telling you, Obama is one of those people.

Think about it. This brother is the complete opposite of everything nasty that racists have ever said about Black people. They said that we were ignorant, nasty, lazy, and didn't have any class--then this brother pops up out of nowhere. If God had handpicked somebody to show that everything racists said about Black people was a lie, we couldn't have done any better than Barack Obama. He's such a clean-cut brother that Senator Joe Biden got himself in trouble for commenting on it. His intellect and academic credentials are beyond dispute-Hillary went to Yale Law School and then got out and couldn't pass the bar; but Obama was the very first Black president and editor of the Harvard Law Review. When he becomes president, he'll easily be one of the smartest presidents in the history of this country. Think about what that's going to do to the argument of those who want to say that Black people are intellectually inferior-and more importantly, think about what it's going to do for the self-esteem of Black children all over this country, and the world.

So looking at Obama is like looking into a crystal ball-he's a perfect reflection of everything the future holds for us as a people. Even his personal heritage is a perfect metaphor for the African American people as a whole-he's the product of a marriage between Africa and America. That's what we are. In other words, Obama is the walking, breathing, personification of who we are as a people.

Obama represents the future of Black people as a whole. Many brothers like to refer back to antiquity to cite the past greatness of our people as something for us to hold on to, but while I recognize and appreciate our great contribution to the past, I'm convinced that it is the future that will define our true greatness.

As African Americans, we are a brand new culture that's in the infancy of our development as a people. We're a people who were conceived in pain, born into struggle, and baptized in adversity. But adversity is experience, and experience is the source of knowledge, so we are uniquely suited to create a new, better, and more compassionate world. Thus, our history lies before us, and I'm convinced, that history will someday reflect that Barack Obama was the first step in our emergence as a people.

All of us who are sitting here today, are blessed to be living at this moment in time. We are a witness to history. We're living in a time that history will someday record as the defining moment of our legacy as a people. And someday, maybe hundreds of years from now, young Black people will be able to look back on our contribution to that history and say, I now stand firm:

I Now stand firm. My dedication to the power of knowledge is the platform upon which my podium rests. I stand firm, strong, and now free--free of anger, free of self-delusion, free of the folly of empty vanity, and free of the pernicious bane of meaningless pride without substance.

I now stand free to look upon the eyes of other men, reflecting dignity over sorrow, and accomplishment over pain; I stand with a burning passion, fueled by the very flame that forged ancestral shackles, with a deep sense of pride, and a pride that flows deep.

I now stand erect! The steel that once degraded my father, that chained him in bondage to this bitter Earth, now reinforce my character, making me more, rather than less; and the blood and sweat that once drenched his brow, and oozed from the yoke around his neck, now rage with resolve and a sense of purpose, and trembles with passion, within my burning breast.

I now stand as a new being--neither simply African, nor simply American, but a hybrid forced to transcend the sum of my parts; no longer simply African, since being torn away from the African motherland to suffer and toil in the fields of America, and more than simply American, after being forced to be more than simply American, Just to survive within the bowels of this prosperous land.

Thus, I stand now armed---armed with the wisdom of deprivation, the courage of my conviction, and a deep conviction of my courage; and fortified-with the confidence of a survivor, the empowerment of knowledge, and a ravishing hunger for greatness.

I now stand the product of love, struggle, and sacrifice; a witness to man's inhumanity to man, and a monument to the hopes and dreams of a million slaves. I stand embraced by my creator, as God now smiles upon my people.

Yes, I Now Stand Firm--Firm, Black, and Free.

That's why I support Obama.

Eric L. Wattree
Wattree.blogspot.com

Posted by: wattree | January 27, 2008 10:41 AM

A couple of observations from a South Carolinian who voted in the Republican primary last week.

1.) This has become a racial issue race brought on by the Clintons in the hopes of stirring up the hidden prejudices of old Southerners. It isn't working but it shows just what they actually think of black Americans.

2.) It's amazing it took so many of you so long to realize what scoundrels Bill and Hill are. I knew it the first day I saw him when he announced in Sept. 1991. He looked crooked then and looks even more so now. His wife is shrill and doesn't have any real experience to make her ready for president.

For that matter, what are Barack's qualifications that show he has been a great leader and is ready for the job. He has a golden tongue for sure, but what would he do in reality.

The truth is there isn't any palatable candidate left on either side of the political spectrum and we will be forced to vote for the better of two evils or not vote at all for the office of president.

Posted by: Ilovelucey | January 27, 2008 10:07 AM

I have my reservations about Hillary Clinton, but I distrust Obama and I absolutely loathe his supporters. I have never voted for a Republican candidate for President in the 30 plus years I have been a registered voter, but if the Democrats nominate Obama and the Republicans nominate McCain, this will be my first time.

Posted by: johndavidbassett | January 27, 2008 10:05 AM

The failure of party leaders to stand up to the Clintons scorched earth march to the White House reminds me too much of their inability to stop the Bush Administration's march to war in Iraq. A lack of courage led Democratic leaders to lay down then, just as they seem to be laying down now, while the Clintons employ an angry and divisive campaign strategy that threatens to damage the party. I hope Democratic leaders realize that Senator Obama will grow the party, while the Clintons will shrink the party. Its that simple. The choice should be clear.

Posted by: maq1 | January 27, 2008 9:53 AM

ichief:

"Sen. Clinton phoned Sen. Obama to congratulate him and repeated her congratulations in her written statement and later on, in Nashville."

This is wonderful...While Hillary is calling in the Stealth Congratulations, Bill is playing the race card. That pretty much meets the definition of a political tag team.

Posted by: Gallery90 | January 27, 2008 9:48 AM

TIME OUT!

First, Senator Obama is no John Kennedy (nor Jesse Jackson either.) He's more of an Adlai Stevenson, as I recall him through the filter of parents who supported him: a reserved, thoughtful, very liberal Illinois politician who appeared somewhat aloof from the crowds even amidst them. Although Stevenson could not win, and might not even have been a good President, he would go on to represent the United States well in the arena of global conflict and cooperation that was as critical to the world then as it is now.

Second, this battle could be good for the Democratic Party, provided some of the theories anonymous political staffers from all three camps are trying to sell on the blogs don't take hold.

Finally, let's not restore the days of absolute political correctness when we rejected facts, such as Jesse Jackson's past success in South Carolina, that might stand in the way of a good story. Since when are past election results "race-baiting?"

Posted by: q.tip73 | January 27, 2008 9:47 AM

Bill is taking a lesson from the likes of Bush and I resent it. Iraq in one sentence, terrorism in the next, hoping the stupid get his drift. Obama / the highly polarizing among certain whites Jesse Jackson. Oh, but Bill, moi?, isn't injecting race into the conversation -- how dare anyone suggest such a thing, you're the one injecting race into the discussion to confront him. I'm sick of those games and I don't want them in my party. Conduct yourself with intellectual honesty or put a sock in it.

Posted by: SarahBB | January 27, 2008 9:46 AM

"Jesse Jackson won South Carolina in '84 and '88."

Translation for Bill Clinton's comment: "Well, let me point out that a Negro candidate actually won the Democratic primary in 1984 and 1988, so, clearly, South Carolina has a history of giving Negroes primary victories. Obama's victory should be looked at in historical context."

What an imbecile. Obama 2008 -- it's time to move beyond the Clinton-Bush era...

Posted by: alchartreux | January 27, 2008 9:43 AM

I will vote for either Obama or Hillary. Whoever wins the nomination gets my vote, since the Deocratic platform, far better for the country than the Republican's, will be espoused and implemented ably by either nominee. In regard to the Obama/Clinton contretemps, most of the posts on this thread seem to miss the core point. The Clinton/Obama friction was about 10% intrinsic and about 90% media fueled, lit, stoked, and fanned by the dishonest and unethical journalism of Anne Kornblut, Colbert King, E. J. Dionne, and Eugene Robinson, etc. First, the greater the controversy the media manufactures, the more money they make. Secondly, if you study the the historical record, the Washington Post has always been virulently anti-Clinton. They know they can't control the Clintons. They'd like to believe that if they can "make" Obama, they can "break" Obama, if he dares to displease the media. Let's hope they are wrong. ODUG

Posted by: odug | January 27, 2008 9:26 AM

Bill Clinton Made a Mistake
Years ago, I met one of the leaders of the Mexican opposition party, National Action Party. During an election I told him that I did not understand why he was working for such a lost cause. He answered that in many respects he felt like a woodcutter trying to bring down an old tree, that had produced scarce fruit that only a few had tasted and enjoyed, and with his ax he, and many others, were blowing away at the base of this tree trying to bring it down to give way to a new tree that would yield fresh fruit for millions to taste and savor.
After 73 years of having existed, the tree was bought down giving way to a new tree whose fruit, true democracy and alternating parties in power are now a reality in Mexico.
Bill Clinton made a mistake comparing Obama with Jesse Jackson. Every true Democrat would be proud of the comparison. Mr. Jackson is one of the many sturdy wood cutters that have inspired many other tree cutters that are bringing down the trees of division, race, gender, class, and creed that will take this great country to new heights. We must support Obama, and other leaders like him, who follow Jesse Jackson and many other leaders who preceded them, chipping away at the foot of an old and useless tree. With our votes, we will help them bring down the tree that has divided this nation

Posted by: esther_624 | January 27, 2008 9:24 AM

A little history lesson for the Obaka idiots on here!

1988 election
Four years later, in 1988, Jackson once again offered himself as a candidate for the Democratic Party presidential nomination. This time, his successes in the past made him a more credible candidate, and he was both better financed and better organized. Although most people did not seem to believe he had a serious chance at winning, Jackson once again exceeded expectations as he more than doubled his previous results, prompting R.W. Apple of the New York Times to call 1988 "the Year of Jackson". [14]

He captured 6.9 million votes and won 11 contests; seven primaries (Alabama, the District of Columbia, Georgia, Louisiana, Mississippi, Puerto Rico and Virginia) and four caucuses (Delaware, Michigan, South Carolina and Vermont).[15]. Jackson also scored March victories in Alaska's caucuses and Texas's local conventions, despite losing the Texas primary.[1] [2] Some news accounts credit him with 13 wins. [3] Briefly, after he won 55% of the vote in the Michigan Democratic caucus, he was considered the frontrunner for the nomination, as he surpassed all the other candidates in total number of pledged delegates.

In early 1988, Jackson organized a rally at the former American Motors assembly plant in Kenosha, Wisconsin, approximately two weeks after new owner Chrysler announced it would close the plant by the end of the year. In his speech, Jackson spoke out against Chrysler's decision, stating "We have to put the focus on Kenosha, Wisconsin, as the place, here and now, where we draw the line to end economic violence!" and compared the workers' fight to that of the civil rights movement in Selma, Alabama. As a result, the UAW Local 72 union voted to endorse his candidacy, even against the rules of the UAW. (Dudley 1994) However, Jackson's campaign suffered a significant setback less than two weeks later when he was defeated handily in the Wisconsin primary by Michael Dukakis. Jackson's showing among white voters in Wisconsin was significantly higher than in his 1984 run, but was also noticeably lower than pre-primary polling had indicated it would be. The discrepancy has been cited as an example of the so-called "Bradley effect".[16]

Jackson's campaign had also been interrupted by allegations regarding his half-brother Noah Robinson, Jr.'s criminal activity.[17] Jackson had to answer frequent questions about his brother, who was often referred to as "the Billy Carter of the Jackson campaign". [18]

On the heels of Jackson's narrow loss to Dukakis the day before in Colorado, Dukakis' comfortable win in Wisconsin terminated Jackson's momentum. The victory established Dukakis as the clear Democratic frontrunner, and he went on to claim the party's nomination, but lose the general election in November.[19]

Obaka has won two states to Hillary's three so far, Counting Nichigan since their delegates will be seated at the convention and anyone that does not think so is truly politically naive. He will lose Florida big and almost all the big super Tuesday states. He is als behind in the delegate race if committed super delegates are counted by 78 delegates. The message is I would not get to bold and comfy if I were an Obaka supporter, which gladly I am not. It is not about race, it is about character and ability to lead, which Obaka is sadly deficient in both areas! I really appreciate the fact that Obaka seems to spend a lot of money and time having his staffers posts on thes internet blogs. I say tis because i recognize some of these idiots blogging on here as Obama staffers. Too Funny and pathetic at the same time!

Posted by: rayacop | January 27, 2008 9:19 AM

I love how everyone posting here is claiming that they represent all Democrats or all Independents...

The truth is that this election year the Democrat Party FINALLY has some viable candidates that have been inspiring many individuals to turn out and vote. Each State has thus far produced record turnouts!

What I find troubling is how all of us, and especially the media, are constantly talking about "race" and/or "gender".

"Is America Ready for a Black President?"
"Is America Ready for a Woman President?"

These headlines have appeared almost daily in all the major newspapers, including the "Left-Wing Media".

What troubles me about this type of behavior is this: It shouldn't matter! What we should be debating is whether or not a candidate is qualified and experienced enough to be President of the United States!?

But instead I am hearing blacks and others call the Clintons "racist". That is absurd. The fact that they pointed out that it took a former anti-civil rights President in L. B. Johnson to pass the "Civil Rights" law in the mid-1960's does not take away the ideas and triumphs of Dr. King. And the media latched onto this and turned it inside out to convey to the American Sheep... errr... I mean public and created a controversy and quite possibly a "civil war" in the Democrat Party.

It is a shame that Obama won only because he was black in yesterday's South Carolina. And it was the same in 1984 and 1988 when Jesse Jackson won that state too... all based on the color of his skin.

I can understand why an African-American will go toward someone that truly represents them... but it is disturbing that it all comes down to pigmentation and not experience, qualifications, etc.

Now, after the last night's victory for Obama in South Carolina comes, what I believe will be, the backlash of votes from caucasians and hispanics.

And this brings me to my point: It is obvious that America is still not mature enough as a country... as a nation "under God"... to see past race and gender to allow them to become our "leader". Shame on us! Shame on us that we haven't had the desire or the capacity to just simply "grow up" and understand the importance of who we elect to all political offices.

Shame on us!

Just remember folks, all great civilizations ended not from outside forces... but from within. And shame on us for allowing it to happen over the course of our history here in the United States of America.

United??? Bah!

It is obvious we don't even know the meaning of that word.

This election year has shown the world just how divisive Americans can be.

Shame on us!

Posted by: louisdasch | January 27, 2008 9:17 AM

We Independents look to authenticity and tactics in deciding how to vote. The Clintons lack authenticity and resort to scurrilous practices to win. Eight years of Billary are enough. As much as I would regret voting for a Republican after 8 years of Bush, I'll not vote again for Billary. The value of "two for one" depends on what the items are--in this case, two duds are worth less than one. Better still is none.

Posted by: JackN | January 27, 2008 8:49 AM

hmmm.... remember the KISS principle... how about that! If one wants to talk about a "race" card advantage or disadvantage...food for thought: Big Business 'A' has always filled the CEO position with a "majority" candidate/applicant... things are not/have not either gone well, very well (or worse), necessarily... what the heck would prevent "hiring authorities" from THINKING that a "minority" "selection", might actually be a bright idea! ... work with me here...

Posted by: pat.rattler | January 27, 2008 8:28 AM

I disagree completely with Kornblut's snide remarks about Hillary Clinton's response to Barack Obama's SC win.

Sen. Clinton phoned Sen. Obama to congratulate him and repeated her congratulations in her written statement and later on, in Nashville.

You can sometimes tell more about a person in defeat than in victory, and Sen. Clinton's graciousness in this instance is in contrast to Sen. Obama's sulleness following her win in Nevada. Obama failed to offer Sen. Clinton even a word of congratulations, and he whined all the way to South Carolina.

Sen. Clinton deserves our support as she moves on to Super Tuesday.

Posted by: ichief | January 27, 2008 8:26 AM

Before the vote, the Clinton campaign considered S.C. of huge importance and spent enormous amount of money there.
Now that they lost, Bill says it wasn't important. But facts are that no President of the last few decades made into the White House without first winning South Carolina.

Posted by: dunnhaupt | January 27, 2008 8:22 AM

DO NOT vote for Hillary Clinton as she is obviously a warmonger and a hypocrite. She voted for the resolution that gave Bush the authority to make a vicious, unnecessary and unjustifiable attack on Iraq, and then criticized him about the war. She continues to vote to give Bush more taxpayers' dollars to continue the war and kill our soldiers and innocent women and children, and she refuses to make a definitive statement that she will bring all our soldiers home even by the end of her first term as president, assuming that she is elected. Ours soldiers are literally being blown apart and kill everyday while the Washington Politicians, including Hillary Clinton give Bush more money for the war so that more of our solders can be blown up and kill in a war that should never have been started. The next soldier that returns home in a body bag or with his/her eyes blown out, brain damaged, no legs or arms and completely paralyzed from head to toe, just might be a relative of yours. Is that really what you want? As Hillary has refused to definitely state that she would bring ours troops home, that is just what you may get. If you want 4 to 8 more years of war after Bush leaves office and if you want yourself, your children and grandchildren to pay for it, vote for Hillary Clinton. If you want an end to the unprovoked and unnecessary war, and America to be set on the right path, then vote for BARACK OBAMA. I have always been a loyal Democrat all of my adult life, but I will not vote for Hillary under any circumstances.

Posted by: Vettaa | January 27, 2008 8:11 AM

As an independent that "planned" to vote for any democrat other than Billary Chameleon, it is refreshing to know that after a 14 year siesta, many of their supporters have awakened this morning and see them now for what they have always been. now repeat after me: "the man lied under oath and she enabled him if only to promote her own self interests". When it became apparent that he may have broken the law, it was incumbent upon the democratic party to hold him accountable and, if appropriate, withdraw its support and transfer power to Al Gore; she(it) would not allow it and look at where we are today...Fortunately, we ALL have a legitimate option and cause for optimism today. GOOD MORNING!

Posted by: rbern3469 | January 27, 2008 8:08 AM

Speaking as an Obama grassroots volunteer, if the Clintons steal this nomination, just watch as we and the youth of the Democratic Party defects en masse in support of John McCain.

Posted by: fox_qajgev | January 27, 2008 7:55 AM

I supported Bill Clinton when the Republicans were hunting him in office, but now I am over Bill Clinton. The SC vote was as much against Bill and Hill as it was for Obama. We'll take hope over win at any cost.

Posted by: pjaia | January 27, 2008 7:26 AM

I'm a conservative republican who should probably be gleeful at what the Clintons have been doing. Instead, (and of course the sorry group of candidates on my slate helps here), I've been amazed at what Obama has managed to do despite facing the most politically capable and lethal couple in the last 40 years. While I wouldn't in a million years vote for Hillary, (with a Bill redux), depending on who finally emerges for my team, I could see myself voting for hope in reconciliation.
It's odd but I can disagree with nearly every one of his positions yet believe he in the hope he espouses. He builds. They tear down.
Democrats, you decide.....

Posted by: jlowry | January 27, 2008 7:18 AM

Guess Bill hasn't learned his lesson yet.

He's either got a very loooooonnnngggg learning curve, or he's a meglomaniac grasping at anything he can to regain power.

What a pathetic loser!

Posted by: nads1 | January 27, 2008 7:06 AM

Why did Bill Clinton wait until the voters of South Carolina had voted to make his point about Jesse Jackson and Barrack Obama? From what I've read so far the Jesse Jackson family household is politically divided in their choice for the democratic primary, with Jesse and his son the congressman being in favor of Obama. While Mrs Jackson instead preferring Hillary. One thing we can now say for sure is that Bill Clinton has caused Hillary to lose her vote, and God only knows how many more.
But Bill Clinton is a calculated conniving closet racist who hopes to gain votes from racist white democrats who far outnumber the blacks who will vote against his wife because of such statements.
I never was one to call him the "first black president". Tom Delay correctly said recently that Bill Clinton was only sucessful being he pushed the republlican agenda, by signing into law 90 percent of the republican contract with america program. If he makes it back to the white house, we'll indeed get what we deserve.

Posted by: kzero2 | January 27, 2008 6:58 AM


THEY USE SMEAR TACTICS IN NEW HAMPSHIRE ABOUT DRUGS AND ABORTION...

THEY USE LAWSUITS IN NEVADA AGAINST HISPANICS...

THEY USE ANGER IN SOUTH CAROLINA...

THEY WILL DO ANYTHING FOR POWER!!!!WELCOME TO THE CLINTONS WORLD!!!

HILLARY CLINTON OPPOSES ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS DRIVER'S LICENCE.

THIS MEANS THEY WILL HAVE TO DRIVE ILLEGALLY TO GO TO WORK!

THIS MEANS THEY CANT GET INSURANCE FOR THEIR CARS!

http://www.usatoday.com/news/politics/election2008/2007-11-14-clinton-immigration_N.htm

Hilarious. Bill Clinton falls asleep at MLK celebration

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/news/2008/01/clinton_gets_sleepy_at_mlk_day.php

CLINTON SAYS WE HAVE THE CIVIL RIGHTS ACT BECAUSE LYNDON JOHNSON SIGNED IT.

GOLDWATER RAN A CAMPAIGN AGAINST JOHNSON...
SO WHY WAS SHE CAMPAIGNING FOR BARRY GOLDWATER WHO WAS AGAINST THE CIVIL RIGHTS ACT???

BY THE WAY CHECK OUT BILL CLINTON'S RACIST POSTCARD HE SENT TO HIS GRANDMA IN 1966 DURING THE CIVIL RIGHTS MOVEMENT.

http://serr8d.blogspot.com/2007/10/bill-clinton-racist-postcard-buy-it-now.html

Posted by: laplumelefirmament | January 27, 2008 6:53 AM

Now I understand why Republicans hated the Clintons.

Posted by: woolldog | January 27, 2008 6:46 AM

The black voters of South Carolina have spoken their mind. Now the race politics will come a full circle. It is very unfortunate that race has become the defining dynamics of the democratic primary election. Hopefully, we will see a return to sanity, no matter who wins. There is no question in my mind that both candidates wanted it this way. Now the new dynamics will carry its own momentum, and there is no way to reverse this trend because it is not in either candidate's interests. Unfortunately Obama will carry his big support among the blacks both as an asset and a liability. Unless he gets large support from the mainstram working class and democratic white voters, he will carry the burden of being a black candidate. It does not augur well either for the primaries or the general election. A divided democratic party is not going to win in November unless both candidates are in the ticket. Hopefully, the current division may still unite the partisans by the threat of defeat in November. I think that black solidarity even against the advice of black leaders will cast a shadow in the remaining primaries. The Republicans must be elated at the self-destructive instincts of the diverse demographic groups in the democratic party. This is not a celebration time, but self-introspection time.

Posted by: vaidyatk | January 27, 2008 6:46 AM

Bill Clinton is a sc*mbag.

Doesn't he have no shame? That jacka$$ keeps playing the race card and always ends up shamed and laughed at.

IDIOT.

Posted by: laplumelefirmament | January 27, 2008 6:46 AM

It is very clear from the ridiculously inane comments to this article just how naive and unsophisticated the American electorate has become.

No one seems to remember how the right-wing war machine spent years hunting the Clintons, most of it at tax-payers expense. When all was said and done, and after seven years of effort, all Ken Starr and his associates managed to prove was infidelity and a husband who lied. If, after all of that treatment, the Clintons learned to play hardball then I am willing to grade them on a curve. Do not forget that these two people have been accused of murder, rape, drug-dealing, lesbianism, and tax evasion--among other things. Do any of you not realize that if the Clintons were guilty of nearly half the charges thrown at them they WOULD be in prison? Do you not realize that Ken Starr would have done ANYTHING to ensure that if he could?

So, this ridiculous and non-stop assault on the Clintons proves that the right-wing's effort to destroy actually works.

If Mr. Obama wins this primary he will be subject to the same push poll antics as were the Clintons. Within six-months half of America will be insisting that Barack Obama is a drug using, money-bilking, Islam supporting, terrorist who is going to allow total access to outside attack. I guarantee it...use your brains people!

The Clintons are not devils, particularly Hillary, who has always had more to recommend than her husband has. That is not to say that they are perfect, but NONE of these people are, not even Saint Barack.

I am going to vote for Hillary, but will vote for Mr. Obama in the general elections if he wins the nomination.

I can only hope that the rhetoric of these boards, so elevated and full of unresearched claims, will take it down a notch and begin a more reasoned and just level of debate. My one, and best, piece of advice for many of you (and I do not mean this condescendingly) is to not take every charge you find in the blogosphere with anything more than a grain of salt. I mean half of you spewing this crap prove beyond a doubt that you have a lesser ethical model than you claim the Clintons or any other politician has.

And that is the truth of it.

peace.

Robert Sandy

Posted by: robertsandy | January 27, 2008 6:25 AM

Bill Clinton's lies and deceptions bring to mind the Soviet Union in the mid-1950s when the Soviets would say anything at all and Soviets would readily accept it so long as it was anti-American. It was part of the Soviet personality cult. I guess that is why I've been getting this spooky feeling watching Hillary these past weeks while her husband twists, deceives and propagandizes as only the Clintons can do and seeing her not so much as Mrs. Clinton as Mrs. Khrushchev strangely running for her husband's office.

Posted by: quigleydude | January 27, 2008 5:58 AM

Sorry folks I forgot to run the spell and grammar check.I do get excited about Dr. Ron Paul

Posted by: caribbean.trader | January 27, 2008 5:53 AM

Holcombe1,
I am impressed with what you have to say.Particularly to the rest of your party.This is America where nobody fallows you into the voting booth.I understand that you feel that you must stick to party lines now that the process has started.It is the LAW.However there is a revolution that has already started and I would like to invite you to join.
If you are sick of the politics as usual that has ruined our country I would ask you to look outside of the Mainstream.There is a candidate that is running that NEITHER Party wants to hear from.
REMEMBERING that nobody will know during a secret ballot PLEASE help us save our constitution and therefore our country,by taking a few moments and dig into the Republican candidate,Dr.Ron Paul..His Own party has dubbed him Dr. No because he isn't afraid to VOTE NO if he believes it is against the Constitution or against his strong Moral Convictions.The man not say everything that you want to hear,BUT, you can go to the bank with what he does say.You will be assured that he will not change a thing that he stands for.I personally find that the biggest CHANGE in this whole political year,of "THE PARTY OF CHANGE"politics.
I am by nature am skeptical mostly because I am hardheaded and refuse to change my mind once it is made up,But I have lately been looking for anyone I could believe in,I have found him in the gentleman of Dr.Paul.
Can you Imagen anyone consistently voting against his own pay raise,how about returning money alloted to run his office in Washington at the end of the Fiscal year.How about someone standing up in Congress and telling his fellows that according to the Constitution that governs us all,their pension plan is illegal pork.
That takes guts.But he is right and in his world there isn't any GREY areas. He is a true public servant,just like the framers of our government had envisioned.A MAN CALLED TO SERVE..WOW..No wonder nobody in politics today wants him to be heard.Not even his own party.Let alone the democrats.
PLEASE LOOK INTO the only one running for the people and REMEMBER that nobody fallows you into the voting booth.
Thanks for looking,
Doc R.Hogan

Posted by: caribbean.trader | January 27, 2008 5:41 AM

Republicans would swift-boat Obama into oblivion. He wouldn't even get 35 percent of the vote. Michelle Obama would flash that temper just once and she'd become a bigger sensation than Willie Horton.

Posted by: blasmaic | January 27, 2008 4:55 AM

Though a registered Democrat, in years past I had no problem jumping party lines to vote for a Republican I thought would be effective. However, my recent voting record has been more along the lines of "vote for any Democrat so we can break up this Republican administration."

So now I am looking at the Clinton race-baiting tag team. Come November, if it is a Clinton(s) v. McCain ballot, I won't hesitate a second to vote for the Republican. (Some of the other Republicans bother me and I'd always be nervous if Romney was in the same room and I couldn't keep an eye on him.)

The "deal" is that Hillary can't win alone. She knows it. So she drags in her pseudo husband. And the Clintonian ethos begins to shine through. You can take the trash out of the trailer...

Not that there is a senior Democratic leadership, but if there was, they would be well advised to tell Bill to "SHUT THE F$#* UP!!"

Meanwhile, the sign on the back of my car says "Keep BILL Clinton OUT of the White House!"

Posted by: Gallery90 | January 27, 2008 4:47 AM

I will admit that as we move forward in the into "Super Tuesday," Sen. Clinton is in very good shape and most likely will outlast Sen. Obama for the nomination. Unlike fear mongering, race-based mentality jjmicaiah; however, I believe she'll will win it not because she is white and he's black, but because she has better organization and roots, name recognition in the midwest and on the westcoast. Most of the Democratic Party elite is in the pocket/camp of the Clintons - still. Moreover, Obama has ALWAYS embraced his "blackness." He chose NOT to let it define him. He's much more than "a black man." Perhaps that's still hard to accept for some. I don't agree with some of Obama stands and indeed I have my reservation as to whether he's the best candidate in the field or is ready for the job. However it amazes me when folks raise the issue of "experience" when it comes to Sen. Obama. As I recall, 16 years ago we took a chance on a governor from a small state (Arkansas), with failing economy, and 48th in education, in the bottom tier for heath care, with no foreign policy experience. None. I'd suggest the same goes for Sen. Clinton. If being First Lady makes one qualified to be President - then she might well me. As I see it, the Republicans will retain control of the White House in November. I'm not sure it's such a bad thing for I'm getting tired of the Clintons sense of entitlement. Win with grace; lose with dignity.

Posted by: j10r2 | January 27, 2008 4:45 AM

Tonight's coverage was one sided. CNN does not employ reporters. Reporters look for facts, not opinions. Will CNN act like the NYTimes did in selling the war? Will they sell us a candidate who lacks the experience to deliver the change the country needs?

Hillary is the only candidate with the experience, original ideas and insight to deliver the change. We have had a disaster with a guy whose only experience was failed businesses. How can democrats expect change from Barack? It seems naïve. The same naïveté that gave us a President fit enough to have a drink with.

Hillary, we need Bill to do what he does best - inspire us! We need you guys to guide us in the right change for America.

And we, the viewers/readers need to demand that media outlets stop the Hillary bashing and double standards.

The double standards that have been in play between Clinton and Obama need to be called out. The media have failed in our duty to expose them. Obama has benefited greatly from them, and they are unjust. How can it be that the press failed to see the double standard when Obama complained that he didn't know whether he was running against Hillary or Bill.

Imagine if Michelle were campaigning as effectively, as passionately, as Bill. Imagine Hillary complaining: 'I can't tell who I'm running against sometimes, Michelle or Barack.' It's laughable. It seems Obama is afforded a special privilege to whine.

The worst thing about Barack Obama's "Change" rhetoric is not that it is light on details. It is that it is a preposterous contradiction: while he claims to be fighting the status quo, it is he who embodies it. It isn't Hillary Clinton who made racist and sexist remarks and got away with it. Why did he get away with it? Because it's the status quo.

Barack Obama will be humbled. But the most worrying thing is that, if he wins the nomination and general election, he may be humbled the same way George W. Bush has been: at the cost of the entire country. I'd rather he gain humility on his own time and not on our dime.

Posted by: jojobickley | January 27, 2008 4:42 AM

Slick Willie, "the first Black president", is trying to make this election about race.

Shame, shame, shame.

Posted by: alarico | January 27, 2008 4:14 AM

One constant in the exit polls so far. The more education that a person has, the less likely they are to vote for Hillary. Her highest percentage of votes is among the "did not finish high school" group. This was not just in South Carolina, but in every primary so far.

In NH for example:

Did not complete high school--61% voted for Clinton
High school graduate--46% voted for Clinton
Some college or associate degree--40% voted for Clinton
College graduate--38% voted for Clinton
Postgraduate study--31% voted for Clinton

Does that really mean that the more educated one is, the less likely they are to vote for Clinton?

Posted by: bwilliams27 | January 27, 2008 4:14 AM

It's funny how the real demeanor, tactics of the Billary machine send people running away in droves. First the Clinton's LOVE my black folks. Bill falls asleep while in church while slumming for votes, Hillary shakes hands with the likes of Bob Johnson who proclaims to be the gateway to black thought. (Um, Bob, you produce shoddy, low quality magazines and a second rate TV channel.) And now that South Carolina has given a resounding "No, way in hell!" to another Clinton candidacy it's back to politics as usual ... Bill race-baiting and pointing at Obama as the instigator. Look Bill. Your wife's a fraud, a person who votes for the war and then trashes the president after the fact, she's the type of person to sell out a supposed best friend Vince Foster, lies about what she says in the press and stands atop the mantle of feminism while criticizing all the women who came forward to accuse her husband of sexual misconduct. That is what we all want to get rid of. We are tired of the old politicking. The kind where people like the Clintons make promises and then pad their pocketbooks and the likes of Bob Johnson and others. Pathetic.

Posted by: rimbaud1 | January 27, 2008 4:04 AM

I must say this: As long as white liberals everywhere in American have voted or will vote for Obama because he is black, thus making them feel good about themselves. And black people have voted and will vote for Obama because he is black, Obama will not win in November. There are a lot of things about Obama that the media has failed to focus on: his used of drugs (cocaine), his voting record in Ill, his US senate record and his shady associations in Chicago. So far Obama to be running on the message that he will bring the country together, but he is yet to tell America how he will do it. Until the SC primary, Obama never want to be called black. But when he got to SC he said he was black. Now I will like to see him as black in the the states voting on the 5th of February. Now let the party begins.

Posted by: jjmicaiah | January 27, 2008 4:00 AM

I think it's a shame that this context is turning into a white vs black. Thanks Pres. Clinton. as a black man I'm offended by the veiled implication that Sen. Obama is a "fluke." It's as if to say that "you're cool as long as I get your vote but don't you dare run against my wife." On the other hand, Sen. Obama's camp has also fanned the flame that suggesting that the Clinton campaign was downplaying Dr. King's role in the Civil Rights Movement when she was merely acknowledging Pres. Johnson's role.

I was hoping that we would get a real debate on the issues facing our nation: economic stagnation, a war with no end in sight, health care, education, national security. We can do better than this. I was hoping this was going to be a different kind of primary.

Posted by: j10r2 | January 27, 2008 3:20 AM

Congratulations, Mr.Obama. Don't let the pundits and other bitter folks sour this victory for you.

I am really coming to resent the implication that voters cannot see past race, especially as it seems to be coming not from your stereotypical toothless redneck, but from the intelligentsia of the Democratic party. I am a white woman from a very rural area which tends to vote Republican. I know a lot of people here who are very excited about Mr.Obama's campaign.

I feel as though the Clintons are treating the electorate as children, much in the same way the current administration has treated us. I believe the American public is more " grown up " than they give us credit for. I choose to believe that this country will elect a black man for president. I also believe this country will elect its first female president. But with the way Sen. Clinton has conducted her campaign, I can only hope she is not the woman who accomplishes this feat.

Posted by: streudel2000 | January 27, 2008 3:06 AM

Synkopen wrote: "How awful that a majority of American women seem to be as short-sighted and stupid as the polls are saying."

Hmmm.... Is this the sort of thing the "politics of hope" the Obama camp keeps talking about? I can only imagine the flame war on this blog if a writer uttered that sentence but substituted a racial group in place of the word "women."

And by the way, Synkopen, as an American woman who does support Hillary, I might mention that I'm no dope. There's nothing stupid in my support for her, or my concerns about Obama.

Posted by: Antistrophos | January 27, 2008 2:57 AM

Synkopen wrote: "How awful that a majority of American women seem to be as short-sighted and stupid as the polls are saying."

Hmmm.... Is this the sort of thing the "politics of hope" the Obama camp keeps talking about? I can only imagine the flame war on this blog if a writer uttered that sentence but substituted a racial group in place of the word "women."

And by the way, Synkopen, as an American woman who does support Hillary, I might mention that I'm no dope. There's nothing stupid in my support for her, or my concerns about Obama.

Posted by: Antistrophos | January 27, 2008 2:55 AM

As the race heats up, comments from the Party faithful can be broken down into two distinct categories: those, like Jonathan Chait, who have turned on Bill Clinton, their former hero; and those who continue to defend him at all costs against this Vast Left Wing conspiracy.

Bush bashing was really getting old, this intramural scuffling is a lot more fun!

Posted by: jd5024 | January 27, 2008 2:51 AM

I commend Anne Kornblut for having the balls to say it like it is - or at least call it as she sees it - rather than sacrifice all meaning in a fruitless search for "balance".

Clinton's statement was sour grapes, and probably much worse than that. It's amazing that a man who's supposed to have a giant IQ would say such a thing when so many people are already on to his game.

But then Bill could argue that his interventions haven't backfired. The press is saying they did because exit polls showed 60% saying Bill's role had influenced their decision, and of these, 48% voted Obama Vs 37% for Hillary.

But Bill could counter (in private) that South Carolinans overall voted 55% for Obama and 27% for Hillary. So in fact she did better among those who noticed Bill's shenanigans than among those who didn't.

The real truth behind these numbers is that Hillary's candidacy leaves people cold. Bill is probably still worth a couple of extra points, but it's not nearly enough when the young turn out as they did in South Carolina.

In a state that returned GW Bush by 58-41 in 2004, Obama attracted twice as many votes as the Republican primary winner John McCain. One hundred thousand more Democrats than Republicans voted in the primaries of this deep-red state.

Not all of these new voters were created by Obama - GW Bush's disastrous presidency is enough to drive even the most lethargic citizen to the polls - but they all support Obama, that's for sure.

Obama is bad, bad news for a weakened GOP. The Clintonites' endless refrain, that Republicans secretly want to run against Obama, looks hollower than ever today. Republicans fear Obama because he opens up the prospect of big turnout, the conservative's nemesis. He could hurt them in places they thought safe. He could even turn the Southern states blue again.

Posted by: Bud0 | January 27, 2008 2:50 AM

I'm a registered independent who voted for Al Gore and John Kerry. I WILL NOT cast my vote for Sen. Hillary Clinton in November (I expect her to be the eventual nominee)regardless of who the Republican nominee is (ok, except if it's Rudy). The Clintons are showing their true colors, in public and right before our eyes. They will stop at nothing to get their way. Pres. Clinton remarks is a slap in the face; we, African-Americans have been the Clintons loyal supporters (minus myself). I expected better from him. Talk of lack of decency.

Posted by: j10r2 | January 27, 2008 2:44 AM

can we please shift the focus from the clintons for one moment (or five) and give credit where it is really due: the OBAMAS (barack and his brilliantly fearless wife michelle), the courageous, free-thinking people of SOUTH CAROLINA, and the hardworking ground team for obama '08 working their behinds off down there this past week!!!! BRAVO to all of you!!!!! JOB WELL DONE!!!!

Posted by: caligirl1 | January 27, 2008 2:38 AM

I too can not believe that there are well meaning Democratic party supporters out there who can look past the pathetic tag team that is the Clinton shell of the legacy that was left to the country in the 90s.
Bill is in the process of destroying his own reputation. Hillary is in the process of having history books write about her as running a campaign that could only win by abusing the race card in a way that even many GOP candidates and staff would not dare go near. And that is a critical point because the GOP would not be able to do what the Clintons have done to Obama and they know that and abused that. Shame on the Clinton campaign.
And both Hill and Bill know they can get away with it because they have had (until now) such a loyal following in the Democratic party. Well that is not the case anymore. People are waking up within the party.
Obama represents a new Democratic party that looks beyond the Clinton legacy. Sure it accepts the achievements of the 90s and respects that but sees a new America with new challenges and the Clintons do not fit that new model. Instead they are lashing out as the model they had prepared is now outdated and they do not know how to beat it. their only recourse is to engage in a campaign that might destroy the Democratic party even if she wins the nomination. Hillary may win the nomination but many people in the party are all saying she is a diminished candidate who is not electable anymore. And now the tipping point is getting closer. Soon the party will see that this style of campaigning will not win the Democrats back the White House.

Posted by: awg1967 | January 27, 2008 2:37 AM

Obama won with whites and blacks and Bill Clinton lost badly!!! If he keeps this kind of talk up he will remind voters why we need to turn the page!

Posted by: crews2me | January 27, 2008 2:32 AM

The Clintons' complete lack of sincerity, their inabiity to give an answer or make a statement that doesn't ooze political calculation, the sense that they are totally caught up in the lowest politics; saying whatever they think will help them, obscuring, distorting, demeaning the campaign, the party, even (in Bill's case) the office of the presidency by their unabashed relishing of the dirtiest Rovian-Atwaterian form of politics, would be disgusting in any campaign. Against Obama, who is so much more clean, straight, open and appealing, they are offering as stark a contrast as one could imagine.

Fellow Democrats, there are alarm bells going off over and over. Despite her having the weight of the party establishment behind her, the big leaders, the big organizations, the big unions, etc., Obama is battling her at least even overall and is overwhelming her among the groups any Dem will need to win the election -- independents, young people, moderate Republicans. He is the only one who can take the White House back -- and what a great day it will be for American when he does!

Posted by: lostintranslation | January 27, 2008 2:28 AM

synkopen said, "I belong to that segment of Democratic voters who will Not vote for a second Clinton WhiteHouse. I wonder how big a group we are?"

Pretty big... and growing every day. I, too, have vowed to no longer vote for loser establishment "robots" force-fed to use by those few who stand to benefit -- the party elite. I will vote my conscience.

Posted by: rockynroll69 | January 27, 2008 2:22 AM

synkopen said, "I belong to that segment of Democratic voters who will Not vote for a second Clinton WhiteHouse. I wonder how big a group we are?"

Pretty big... and growing every day. I, too, have vowed to no longer vote for loser establishment "robots" force-fed to use by those few who stand to benefit -- the party elite. I will vote my conscience.

Posted by: rockynroll69 | January 27, 2008 2:22 AM

synkopen said, "I belong to that segment of Democratic voters who will Not vote for a second Clinton WhiteHouse. I wonder how big a group we are?"

Pretty big... and growing every day. I, too, have vowed to no longer vote for loser establishment "robots" force-fed to use by those few who stand to benefit -- the party elite. I will vote my conscience.

Posted by: rockynroll69 | January 27, 2008 2:22 AM

"implorable" = "deplorable"?

Posted by: JakeD | January 27, 2008 2:03 AM

Comparing Obama to Jackson is like comparing night to night in bizarro world. I actually expected, if Obama were to win SC, it would be implied that it was merely due to the black vote. I just didn't think it would ever dare come out of Bill's mouth. Hillary's, maybe, but not the man who had such a devoted voter base in the African-American community. Goes to show they will say ANYthing to take down Obama and not even consider how much they've alienated their own former supporters.

I find it pretty damning that every day, I check the major newspapers and CNN and there is ALWAYS a new piece calling out Billary's hypocrisy, faux pas, mistruths, and downright lies. Time to move on.

Posted by: tinroofrusted77 | January 27, 2008 1:45 AM

From South Carolina's paper, The State...

Primaries And Caucuses.
Jan 2008. Winner-Obama. Turnout 531687, a record for SC DemPrima

Feb 2007. Winner-Edwards. Turnout 300000.

March 2000. Winner-Gore. Unopposed.

MARCH 1992. Winner-BILL CLINTON. Votes cast? A MERE 100,000.

That is, Clinton DIDN'T EVEN GET A THIRD OF OBAMA'S TOTAL.

hehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehe.

Posted by: Mike107 | January 27, 2008 1:32 AM

I Totally agree with FormerSubscriber's brilliant "albatross" analysis. Remember how shocked and sick we were to witness the Supreme Court and the lawless, unchallenged 2004 Ohio vote twice catapult the current president in the WhiteHouse? I fear we will now witness our own shocker in seeing our party eagerly and ignorantly nominate an unelectable divider for the fall race. Watching, for example, the NYTimes relentlessly push Billary down the nation's throat (with the exceptions of Rich, Herbert, and Dowd) is just one trajectory in this tragic, suicidal mission. Yes, tragic for the world, which is waiting on baited breath for America to return to some sanity on all fronts, whether it be the economy or torture. I belong to that segment of Democratic voters who will Not vote for a second Clinton WhiteHouse. I wonder how big a group we are? She would keep us in Iraq as long as McCain, all the while deferring to the generals, like she now defers to her hubby when asked about their financial backers. How awful that a majority of American women seem to be as short-sighted and stupid as the polls are saying. I can't begin to have hope until the Democratic electorate begins to resoundly reject the doomed Clinton dynamic. My greatest hope is that if Billary wins the nomination, Obama will run as an independent - why shouldn't he? He knows he can beat her on the national stage, and he is already slated to win against McCain or Romney.

Posted by: synkopen | January 27, 2008 1:19 AM

I agree with FormerSubscriber, but first and foremost, what a fine win for Barack Obama. I hope he can pull through, because given the real threats we all face, whether on the foreign, environmental, or economic fronts, we sorely need a transformational figure in the White House, and he's the only one with a shot.

Posted by: aaron.fate | January 27, 2008 1:19 AM

rhetorical (12:48), here's the context, from the NY Times. Nothing justificatory here:

On Saturday in Columbia, even before Mr. Obama's big victory became clear, reporters asked Mr. Clinton what it said about Mr. Obama that it "took two people to beat him." Mr. Clinton dismissed the question as "bait," but added: "Jesse Jackson won South Carolina twice, in '84 and '88. And he ran a good campaign. Senator Obama has run a good campaign here, he has run a good campaign everywhere." Bringing up Jesse Jackson in response to a question about Mr. Obama seemed to be another way of pointing out that Mr. Obama is black and at the same time marginalizing his importance, as well as South Carolina's, since Mr. Jackson did not become the nominee.

Posted by: nshafroth | January 27, 2008 1:13 AM

You know I Hillary had not run after 8 years of Bush 2 we might have ll looked back on the Cliton year with fond memories. After both of their returns to politics we now all remember just how right of center Clinton 1 & 2 were and remember that Hillary had a large part in that.

Posted by: crete | January 27, 2008 1:06 AM

FormerSubscriber: Superb. Thank you.

Posted by: jbutterfield1 | January 27, 2008 1:06 AM

clearly a problem with the website!!!

Posted by: Antistrophos | January 27, 2008 12:49 AM

I really hope that the Black people of this country now see the Clintons and the Democrat party for what they really are. They do not care about you. They only care about your vote.

If Obama does not get the nomination please consider a Republican candidate. It is time for Black people to stop only voting for the Democrats especially when the Democrat is a Clinton.

Posted by: Holcombe1 | January 27, 2008 12:49 AM

Before I jump to conclusions about Bill Clinton's comment -- which, as it appears in the video, looks really shady -- I'd sure like to see the 60 seconds leading up to it. Not just the 5 second question, but the context. After some of the things the media has done with sound bites during this campaign, I no longer trust that we're not being duped by clever editing.

If there were questions about Jesse Jackson just moments before, or a query about whether it was 'historical' for Obama to win SC, that would change the meaning. (If there weren't, well, yuck.) Still, I notice that Clinton begins by saying something about 'baiting', but the recorded question by the reporter isn't much of a 'bait.'

So, Washington Post, show us more of the video feed! Let us see the comment in context and reach our own conclusions.

If it was as bad a comment as it seems to have been, the former POTUS should apologize. But so should Obama's co-chair, Jesse Jackson Jr., for pretending that Hillary teared up in NH "over her appearance" and that she'd never shed a tear over Katrina (i.e., black folks). There are unclean hands on all sides.

Posted by: Antistrophos | January 27, 2008 12:48 AM

So why is it when Latinos voted solidly for Clinton the press and Obama implied that it was racist? Why is it that when white women voted for Clinton in NH the press and Obama shouted "Tom Bradley"? I ask because blacks voting along racial lines does not seem to be so bad, according to the media and Obama...

Posted by: fjstratford | January 27, 2008 12:47 AM


So why is it when Latinos voted solidly for Clinton the press and Obama implied that it was racist? Why is it that when white women voted for Clinton in NH the press and Obama shouted "Tom Bradley"? I ask because blacks voting along racial lines does not seem to be so bad, according to the media and Obama...

Posted by: fjstratford | January 27, 2008 12:47 AM


So why is it when Latinos voted solidly for Clinton the press and Obama implied that it was racist? Why is it that when white women voted for Clinton in NH the press and Obama shouted "Tom Bradley"? I ask because blacks voting along racial lines does not seem to be so bad, according to the media and Obama...

Posted by: fjstratford | January 27, 2008 12:47 AM

Before I jump to conclusions about Bill Clinton's comment -- which comment, as it appears in the video, doesn't look very good to me -- I'd sure like to see the 30 seconds leading up to it. I no longer trust that we're not being duped by clever editing. If there were questions about Jesse Jackson just moments before, or a query about whether it was 'historical' for Obama to win SC, that would change the meaning. I notice that Clinton begins by saying something about 'baiting', but the recorded question by the reporter isn't much of a 'bait.'

Hey, Washington Post, show us more of the video feed! Those of us with half a brain have stopped trusting the way the media reports any of this. Let us see the comment in context and reach our own conclusions!

Posted by: Antistrophos | January 27, 2008 12:43 AM

Before I jump to conclusions about Bill Clinton's comment -- which comment, as it appears in the video, doesn't look very good to me -- I'd sure like to see the 30 seconds leading up to it. I no longer trust that we're not being duped by clever editing. If there were questions about Jesse Jackson just moments before, or a query about whether it was 'historical' for Obama to win SC, that would change the meaning. I notice that Clinton begins by saying something about 'baiting', but the recorded question by the reporter isn't much of a 'bait.'

Hey, Washington Post, show us more of the video feed! Those of us with half a brain have stopped trusting the way the media reports any of this. Let us see the comment in context and reach our own conclusions!

Posted by: Antistrophos | January 27, 2008 12:41 AM

I'm still shocked by this. I mean, we already saw over the last week the kind of people that the Clintons are, and I pledged a couple of days ago that, as a loyal Democrat, I wouldn't ever vote for Hillary under any circumstances.

But this is just so darn. . . transparent. Shockingly so, really. And it's not just black people who are offended by this -- although I can't say I wasn't already offended after the last few weeks.

I can't believe how much the Clintons have torn apart my party. Their time has passed, and they really need to go.

Posted by: davestickler | January 27, 2008 12:26 AM

Ovama won or tid among all women under 40.
Obama won or tid among white votrs under 40.
This is, as h has maintaind, about generational change -- not gender or race. it is the "old" people who are voting their race and gender. And they are being egged on by th Clintons. FormerSubscriber hit the nail on the head:

"The Clintons are triangulating the Democratic Party. Whatever Hillary's attributes, and they are many, the restoration of the Clintons to the White House will be bad for party, bad for the country, and bad for the world. We need to turn the page. Democrats need to turn the page. The world needs to turn the page. A progressive, forward-leaning politics under a second Clinton White House is not possible. That wasn't clear at the outset. It is now."

Posted by: mnjam | January 27, 2008 12:24 AM

One thing: Obama ain't Jesse! Slick Willie can spin this all he wants but the truth found him and Slippery Hillary out! People don't like being used by slick pols who readily discard them when their usefulness is exhausted. People don't like window-dressing tokenism either. The Clintons are guilty of race-baiting, gutter politics and the people of South Carolina said "He!! no to Hillary." The demographics: Black and white; men and women, voted for Obama! So Bill, go spin something else because America ain't buying the bovine scat anymore!!

Posted by: meldupree | January 27, 2008 12:22 AM

Will Ron Fournier revise his statement that Clinton won SC? I think divisive racism, in addition to Clinton, lost big tonight.

Posted by: cmss1 | January 27, 2008 12:21 AM

Bill Clinton is looking more and more like King Kong--in the 1933 movie version--in which the simian holds aloft a fetching but terrified Fay Wray--here the Democratic Party--while raging: "Love me! Love me!"

Posted by: Martinedwinandersen | January 27, 2008 12:21 AM

This is Justice!
I have been sickened by the lies of the "evil twins"and their sadistic glee as they have tortured Obama with their Roveian tactics.
They tried to show "the boy" that he had not earned his place at the plantation dining table.
Hurrah for America!
Maybe there is a God!

Posted by: skycontrol | January 27, 2008 12:19 AM

Bill Clinton's comments regarding Jesse Jackson are implorable. How there are black people standing behind him any longer is starting to alarm me? His comments are in fact RACIST. So black people are cool when they can vote you in but if they vote for someone else then let the racist remarks fly.

At first, I honestly thought Bill was been calculating and koy about fighting with Obama. Now, I feel he is about to ruin his legacy that he has built with American minorities. What a selfish act the Clinton's have become.

America Super Tuesday can put an end to this forever. At first I thought Hilary would be an awesome ticket for the Dem's. Now, I don't want to see either of them as they are both disgusting.

Posted by: christian15213 | January 27, 2008 12:15 AM

davestickler -
you really need to do some more reading...

Posted by: ndolan622 | January 27, 2008 12:12 AM

Hey, at least the Clintons aren't race-baiting, or anything.

Posted by: davestickler | January 27, 2008 12:10 AM

I guess the Clinton's plan of 'ricochet' politics backfired on them...maybe Hillary is waking up a bit, but I doubt Bill is. This article shows clearly their lack of character...and do not think for a minute that the wonderful people of South Carolina did not pick up on that! As one SC voter put it so beautifully - 'SC gave them a spankin'!

Posted by: ndolan622 | January 27, 2008 12:05 AM

Hello people! It is OBVIOUS to me that the Clintons were trying to make Obama the "Black candidate" all along particularly when Bill says that Barack's win was like Jesse Jackson's. Why didn't Bill say that Obama's win was like Edward's in 2004?

Of course not. It is OBVIOUS to many what the Clintons are trying to do. If anybody doesn't see that than they are BLIND.

Posted by: maritza1 | January 27, 2008 12:00 AM

As a nation, we literally pickled in Ken Starr's vat of panty sniffing for over two years (and it's important to be crass in our descriptions, to remind ourselves of the ick factor of that unnecessary spectacle). The specific possibility of Bill Clinton returning to the White House, in whatever capacity, disturbs a clear majority of Americans.

That the blame for this revulsion should be attibuted mostly to Ken Starr and Newt Gingrich matters not. Bill's gallant work on behalf of our park system and wildlife refuges, his deft diplomatic management of the Bosnian wars, his steerage of our deeply mourned economic surplus, his defeated efforts to preserve the NPT, and his human touch at OKC, all of this and more have long been squandered by the Party and -- crazily -- by the Clinton's themselves. They have had a strong record to run on, but they don't. If they had, we would have been reminded of these things over and over during the campaign, because they strengthened our country. But in their joint conduct, in their immodest money grab and tandem dismissal of campaign finance reform, in Hillary's ambiguous moment when she discovered "her voice" before unloading on Barack, and in Bill's many finger-wagging Morris Moments, we must conclude their prize is power, or that they didn't trust us. Neither is acceptable.

The fact that neither Edwards nor Obama has gone nuclear on Bill isn't surprising -- no good could come of it for the Democratic Party. The best that could occur is voter deflation. But Obama's and Edwards' high-road approach doesn't mean there isn't a huge resevoir of malaise from the impeachment years just beneath the surface, and every time Bill sanctimoniously cries "shame", it bubbles to the top.

Were I a Hillary supporter, I would be agitating mightily for his exile from the campaign. He is an albatross around his wife's neck. If Hillary wins the nomination, he'll be an albatross around the party's neck. And if she loses to McCain because of Bill, he'd be an albatross around the nation's neck. He had this one chance to restore his legacy as both a statesman and public husband, and he's blown it.

Political calculations have prevailed. The Clintons are wagering no one will bring up their multiple flaws of the '90s, because they know as well as anybody it would damage the party. And in the zero-sum game of their brand of politics, they attack and leverage freely based on this principle. It has mostly worked to date, but we are awakening.

The Clintons are triangulating the Democratic Party. Whatever Hillary's attributes, and they are many, the restoration of the Clintons to the White House will be bad for party, bad for the country, and bad for the world. We need to turn the page. Democrats need to turn the page. The world needs to turn the page. A progressive, forward-leaning politics under a second Clinton White House is not possible. That wasn't clear at the outset. It is now.

Posted by: FormerSubscriber | January 26, 2008 11:59 PM

Let's see now. Shillary was up by 30 in Iowa, and ended up losing handily.

She was up by 33 in New Hampshire, before she ended up winning by 6.

She was up by 28 in Nevada four months ago, and ended up winning a narrow victory, but actually ended up with fewer delegates because Obama's votes were statewide, as opposed to concentrated in Vegas.

And in November, Shillary was up by 25% in South Carolina, and leading amongst Black voters by 15%, only to be "routed" (according to AP), by an almost 2 to 1 margin.

And Bill Clinton tells us the S.C. vote is no big deal, cause even Jesse Jackson won there...so it's "a Black thing", and not to be taken seriously.

As usual Bill forgets to mention when Jackson won, he had the built in advantage of it being a caucus state then, as opposed to the primary it is now.

The only thing certain is, can Shillary get these elections over soon enough, because it is plain the longer people have a chance to give her a good smell, the more obvious the stench becomes.

Even in her wins, she's just held on.

The Dems only win in Nov. if they BUILD the party. What is clear about Shillary is she shrinks the party, divides the electorate, will keep progressives at home, while she and her husband are on their way to doing a SPECTACULAR job of burning a bridge with one of the Dems most traditional constituencies.

What a sad spectacle Bill has become, often truly appearing as if off his meds. Trashing the dignity of the Presidential office by acting like a lowrent political hack, as never seen before.

But, then again, same as it ever was.

Bill is supposed the be the de-facto head of the Democratic Party. But, as always, he is more caught up in his own self interest and self-gratification than worrying about his Party, much less his country.

Posted by: filmex | January 26, 2008 11:58 PM

I am a graduate student in the sciences. I wish I could tap into the Clinton energy: if I could spin my data the way they can spin anything, I'd have already graduated.

Posted by: salilgarg | January 26, 2008 11:58 PM

President Clinton is absolutelt right. Jesse Jackson won 11 states in 1988 while winning 64% of the vote in SC.

Posted by: chefjo2001 | January 26, 2008 11:58 PM

The comments to this entry are closed.

 
 

© 2009 The Washington Post Company