RECENT POSTS
- Oprah, Health Care Lobbyists, Among Recent Visitors to White House
- An Obama Thanksgiving Menu, with an Extra Serving of Pie
- White House Thanksgiving Traditions: Broken and Observed
- Obama, GOP Air Differences Over Jobs, Economy In Thanksgiving Addresses
- White House State Dinner Party Crashers
- Obama to Lay Out Emissions Goals in Copenhagen
- Free Bird
- The "Good" War
- The Presidential Planner
- Under the Stars, Obama Toasts India’s Prime Minister
MONTHLY ARCHIVES
« Previous | Main | Next »
Bubba and Jesse Jackson, Part III
January 27, 2008 11:09 AM
Another thing, as former President Bill Clinton must surely know, the Rev. Al Sharpton ran in South Carolina -- and came in third. (LINK)
Sharpton garnered 10% of the vote, behind John Edwards (45%) and John Kerry (30%).
Jesse Jackson's victories there can surely be attributed at least in part to Jackson's being FROM South Carolina.
But then again, if the point is to get the media and the political world talking about race … I guess he succeeded, at least with me, this morning.
-- jpt
January 27, 2008 in 2008: Democrats | Permalink | Share | User Comments (33)
You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.
It is refreshing to hear Obama as he fashions a new and refreshing approach and visionary thinking which he applies to the problems and solutions as he envisions it. I say many will be singing his praises if he is given the opportunity to bring his dream for America to fruition.
drb
Posted by: barry brown | Feb 2, 2008 6:44:35 PM
There is only one man who can beat Barack Obama, and that man is not running as he has left politics to work with global climate change. Now Barack Obama is unbeatable. He deserves all the credit since he build his campaign from zero based on his merits, his message, and support of his grassroot volunteers. He is comparable to JFK in brining about fundamental changes and reaching out to republicans. Clinton family is wasting time, resources, and destroying the image of the democratic party. If Clinton were to be nominated by "Super Delegates" against the will of the majority of American voters, then I along with many more democrats will vote for Senator McCain or independent candidate. Thanks to Mr Clinton's "extracurricular" activities, we were blessed with "president" Bush for eight years.
Posted by: Singh T. Junior | Jan 30, 2008 10:18:06 AM
Bush, Clinton, Clinton, Bush, Bush. Is voting for Clinton really a vote for change? Or the same old oligarchy?
As an independent, I am considering Obama. If Clinton wins the nomination, I'm voting Republican. Even the Communist party is more conservative than Clinton.
Posted by: Think for Yourself | Jan 30, 2008 10:14:11 AM
C'mon Jake, you can't really try to sell us Al Sharpton as a serious candidate. He was no Jesse Jackson and you know it. Sharpton is to Jackson as Keyes is to Obama.
Obama 55%
Jesse 55%
Posted by: GEEVILL | Jan 28, 2008 2:34:44 PM
I can only quote from the immortal Puck, who said, "Lord, what fools these mortals be!"
Posted by: chuck | Jan 28, 2008 2:21:59 PM
As a Canadian, watching from afar, this is frightening! The THOUGHT of such seemingly deceitful People in your White House is something that should propel EVERY AMERICAN to the polls! It appears they do not care at all about what is GOOD for the American People, throwing ANYONE in their way under the bus. Amazing. Good luck, America!
Posted by: susan | Jan 28, 2008 8:38:25 AM
Don't underestimate the Clintons. They don't do ANYTHING that isn't calculated as being to their advantage. Their strategy is to cause a rift in the Democratic Party on the way to the nomination. The plan is to make it impossible for Sen. Obama to turn down the offer to be Sen. Clinton's running mate. He will have two choices: magnanomously accept the offer and possibly become the first African-American Vice President OR turn it down and be blamed for passing up the opportunity to unite the party -- and be the fall guy should the Democratics lose in the general election.
Posted by: James Danley | Jan 27, 2008 8:12:04 PM
By the end of the Primaries both Obama and hillary are going to be damage goods. If the Dems have a broker convention they could have one if Edwards keeps getting 15 to 25 % of the vote. I admire Edwards he is certainly a fighter. the Democrats would be smart to pick Edwards or someone not mention. But no one ever accused the Dems leadership as Smart.
Posted by: mark | Jan 27, 2008 7:33:20 PM
Is it still too early to rejoice in the downfall of the Clintons? Let's jump the gun.
Posted by: @T | Jan 27, 2008 7:15:36 PM
What hypocrites these candidates are. They support separation of church and state but they go to a church to promote their political agenda from the pulpit. If a pastor get up and talks about politics they want to close the church down or take their tax exempt status from them. If a person or group wants to pray before a football game they are not aloud. If our courts want to hang the ten commandments in the court room they can’t. Hypocrites I say, it is ok for the politicians to as they please .
Posted by: thomas | Jan 27, 2008 7:02:29 PM
Phew!! We can all relax. Hillary just said that Bill's comments concerning Obama were due to Bill's sleep deprivation and not because he is a conscienceless, conman as most of us suspected.
Posted by: Michael Lofrano | Jan 27, 2008 6:05:37 PM
It really seems to me the CLinton camp is determined to cast Obama as the black candidate use the race issue as a wedge. WHo is working for them? Karl Rove? These tactics don't belong in the democratic party. For this reason I support Obama. He has tried to stay above the fray at least. What kind of former president behaves this way?
Posted by: Melissa | Jan 27, 2008 5:54:09 PM
This presidential election is about the PAST vs. the FUTURE. We have had 20years of the ClintonandBush Dynasties (I would not be surprised if the Clintons and Bushes meet secretly to dole out their timelines of reign, watch if Hill wins, Jeb will be the next Republican president).
It's time to look to the FUTURE and vote OBAMA.
Posted by: Ann B. | Jan 27, 2008 5:40:04 PM
Does anyone have the full interview, rather than just one question? I am interested in showing it to my political science students but it would be unfair to take it out of context.
Posted by: tony | Jan 27, 2008 4:47:01 PM
Why did Bill Clinton compare Obama's win to Jesse Jackson's in 1988 rather than, say, Edwards' in 2004?
This is yet another example of Bill Clinton's slithering euphemistic diversion into race politics. I have no time for the man anymore. None whatsoever. I congratulate the gentleman, Mr Obama, and thoroughly wish him all success.
Posted by: Richard Rote (California) | Jan 27, 2008 4:10:59 PM
The media is stealing this election from the people with deliberate race issues against the Clintons. I'll give you an example...
The reporter that questioned Bill Clinton, asked him a two part question...first, whether Obama could win because he was black..and THEN he asked what it meant that it took two people to defeat him. All the media coverage has deleted the first part of the question and attacked Bill for injecting "Jesse Jackson" into the response. Wake up people and tell the media to knock this crap off. They are doing a huge dis-service to our democracy.
Posted by: D.Campbell | Jan 27, 2008 4:09:57 PM
I hope the press plays this up all week like they did with Trent Lott and his praise of Strom Thurmond. The Clintons are no different than GW Bush and Karl Rove when it comes to cut throat politics. They could care less about the country - it's all about their lust for power.
Posted by: brhseattle | Jan 27, 2008 3:57:00 PM
South Carolina had no Democratic Presidential Primary in either 1984 Nor 1988. Clinton’s statement has caused most people to believe that Jesse Jackson won presidential primaries in South Carolina in those years. Actually there were no Democratic presidential primaries in South Carolina in either of those years. Jackson’s success in that state was in caucuses (Jackson was born in South Carolina).
Posted by: Coffee260 | Jan 27, 2008 3:50:27 PM
It is terrible to see here and at other online sites the large number of people who are seeing the Clintons and their ways for the first time after having supported them for so long.
It just goes to show how many people have voted in the past with their mind shut choosing style over substance.
And there is no indication that they are going to change anytime soon.
It's scary!
Posted by: zqll | Jan 27, 2008 3:42:12 PM
Obama needs vetted now. THe republican won't treat himwith kid gloves' they were tear him apart. better that the Demos and supporters see the truth now.
Posted by: Woodstock | Jan 27, 2008 3:12:56 PM
Post a comment


