Let me be clear here. I am not implying that the former president actually thinks that all black candidates are physically indistinguishable. But I am implying that his recent attempt to dismiss Barack Obama's blowout victory in South Carolina with a backhanded comparison to Jesse Jackson's previous losing presidential bids, reeked of condescension.
Before any die-hard Clinton fanatics attempt to argue that this was yet another Clinton quote taken out of context, or distorted by the media (all of whom must clearly hold some grudge or bias against the Clintons; after all why else would anyone ever criticize them, even when they warrant it?), I watched the video in which the man who was once dubbed "the first black president" nearly a decade ago made the aforementioned remark.
In a brief walk and talk with reporters the former president had the following exchange:
REPORTER: What's it say about Barack Obama that it takes two of you to beat him?
PRESIDENT CLINTON: That's just bait too. Jesse Jackson won in South Carolina twice in '84 and '88 and he ran a good campaign.and Senator Obama's run a good campaign here. He's run a good campaign everywhere. He's a good candidate with a good organization.
Here's what's striking about the exchange. President Clinton wasn't asked about Jesse Jackson's campaign. In fact, if he wanted to reference candidates who had "run good campaigns," won South Carolina's Democratic primary, and still gone on to lose the nomination he could have just as easily referenced Sen. John Edwards. In fact, wouldn't that have made more sense considering Edwards' win was in 2004 not 1984? The message, subconscious or not, seemed to be this: "At the end of the day all black campaigns look alike, run alike and eventually lose alike -- so this South Carolina thing is really no big deal."
Oh how wrong this assertion is.
A gift for oratory, a shared home base of Illinois, and yes, skin color, are just about all that the presidential campaigns of Barack Obama and Jesse Jackson have in common.
Aside from representing different generations, the two men represent two vastly different worldviews. Jackson, a veteran civil rights activist, is known as much for his racially charged rhetoric (and willingness to hoist himself before the nearest tv camera), as he is for his presidential runs and his role as an international statesman, who has famously negotiated the release of various U.S. hostages over the years.
Obama, a product of the post-Civil Rights generation, as well as of a multi-racial heritage and multi-cultural upbringing, is known for his ability to use rhetoric to bridge our country's racial and cultural divides, inspiring a real-life "rainbow coalition" on the campaign trail unlike no other our country has seen before. According to Sen. Obama his family reunions are a sort of mini-United Nations, complete with relatives who resemble the dark-skinned African-American comedian Bernie Mac, and others who resemble former British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher. In other words, he does not strike voters of various hues as someone who might accidentally allow the derogatory term "hymie" to slip into conversation -- a slip that cast a cloud over Jackson's first run for the presidency and has continued to shroud his legacy.
While Jackson has said that he was not upset by Clinton's remarks we all should be. After all, the so-called "first black president" should have known better. Maybe this is why Toni Morrison, the woman who christened him "the first black President" was moved to endorse the man who really could become the first black president, this time around.
Read more Keli Goff at www.keligoff.com
Follow Keli Goff on Twitter: www.twitter.com/keligoff
Perhaps former Pres. Clinton wanted to conjure up a more menacing image to DEM front-runners than that of John Edwards. In any event he miscalculated. Barack Obama is no Jesse Jackson. At this point I prefer Obama to Hillary on the strength of his ability to electrify voters and sweep many more into the house (and senate?) on his coattails. It remains to be seen whether or not Hillary has the gravitational pull to match him.
Best, and thanks for the insights!
L4
I am shocked at some of the comments accusing the media of "savaging" the Clintons!
Another note, mentioning Jesse Jackson’s name is not a racial slur. Its one thing to look back to the days of MLK, but it’s another to turn your back on those who stood with him. It’s okay to respect those who fell down, so that you can stand up
The Clintons are done. Everybody knows it but them.
No one can imagine that the Clintons got together and said, "let's inject race into this race and come out looking like racists! That'll get us elected for sure!"
In fact, it was Ted Kennedy's disgust with Bill and Hillary bringing race and racial divisiveness into this campaign that led him to endorse Obama.
Bill and Hillary have ruined it for themselves, and have tarnished whatever good will they once had with a majority of African-Americans.
I'll always remember my digust when I saw that an anonymous Clinton aide said in an article that Obama Is For People Who Want An "Imaginary Hip Black Friend".
http://tpmelectioncentral.com/2008/01/clinton_aide_obama_is_for_people_who_want_imaginary_hip_black_friend.php
Thanks Keki.
The fact that SC twice voted for Jesse Jackson in Presidental primaries was a statement about SC not Obama, but when you are afraid of facts, and have an agenda that you want to see pushed in spite of the facts( in this case the media totally overplaying the signicance of Obama's win) then you do what you did. You play the race card.
Quit listening to Chris Matthews. Nobody cares if you want to be an Obamian. Just quit playing the victim. Lighten up!
As long as people (like you) continue to scan every spoken word for "purity" by persons of different races, you will continue to walk around with a chip on your shoulder. You are primed and ready to pounce on any comment that doesn't get through your filter without setting off your "racial" alarm of ever-increasing sensitivity.
Blacks have a choice. Continue to behave and act like victims or quit being so sensitive about every word spoken.
I saw NOTHING in ANYTHING Bill Clinton said that was even remotely racial.
Moreover, Obama happened to capture almost the same exact % of votes as Jackson did in 1988. Obama capture 55% and Jackson captured 54%.
Who was Clinton supposed to liken Obama to make the point he wanted to make -- that a win in SC doesn't necessarily mean a win. He wanted to blunt the win as Obama wanted to blunt Hillary's win in Nevada.
If Clinton pointed to himself, it would be the exactly different point because he won SC and the nomination. Gore also won in SC on his way to the nomination. The only other person to point to in recent memory would have been Edwards but given that Edwards outcome in SC was still in issue that also was not a good reference point for Clinton.
What is the most scurrilous & swift-boating is to accuse Bill Clinton of being a racist.
At New York's City Hall earlier this week, there was a pro-Obama rally in which a black elected official who supports Obama made the same comparison Bill Clinton did, stating "If you look at the fact that Jesse Jackson in 1988 won New York City with a coalition of diverse supporters that is not as diverse as we think Senator Obama would be able to put together, I think he has a very good chance of winning New York City."
How do you attack Clinton for doing the same thing Obama's very own supporters are doing?
Classic passive aggressive racist-baiting.
Disgusting.
Let's review recent history.
A few days before the SC primary, The Clinton campaign began to lower expectations in SC, by saying that the large % of black voters will almost certainly support Obama.
The Obama campaign responded by issuing a memo about how hard the Clinton's had tried to win SC and reminding the public of his large lead in the polls just a month ago.
The Obama camp than began to lower expectations on the % of white votes they would get, going so far as to leak that they may not even get 10%. The result (He got 25%), a number of post election stories that talk about a decisive victory by Obama supported by a coalition of Black and White voters.
Bill Clinton brings up Jesse, to remind everyone that Obama won because of his overwhelming support (80%) from the Black voters in SC, and to blunt the suggestion that 55% to 27% of democrats throughout the country, were supporting Obama over Hillary.
Some people call it racist. I call it politics. So far, the Clinton campaign have been matched move for move by the Obama campaign.