Political Punch

I remember early in nthe campaign when Bill Clinton was asked is opinion of the other candidates,he only had positive, complimentary things to say about each an every one including Obama.Nobody commented on his integrity. Meanwhile Elizabeth Edwards and Michele Obama were throwing their poison darts at Hillary. They were not criticized for that. But when the insults against Hillary got too much, Bill came to her defense. Isn't that what a man should do for the woman he loves? Why the double standard??

I couldnt wait another day...I voted yesterday for BARAK OBAMA and it felt wonderful...inside and out.
I believe the change we need will come from his administration. PERIOD.

Look guys! I admit that Obama is indeed a very good candidate, with impressive qualifications to be president. That fact stands on its on own. You don´t need to demonize the Clintons to bring that to light.
By the way, I am black, and I see that any comment that any one makes about Obama is interpreted to be racist or race insensitive. All of this started with the comments Hilary made in regards to president LBJ´s collaboration with Dr. King in advancing civil rights legislations. To me, Hilary was just implying you need a ¨future president¨ that is sympathetic to the cause of the civil right movement
to enact legislation promoting that movement. You know it, and I know it! Why make this into a race issue. Obama doe not need that extra help.
I might just vote for Obama, but before then, he has to show me that he can actually take a punch. We all know by now that the republicans will hit him a lot harder than Hilary did.

I was born and raised in Eastern Arkansas and was a Hillary supporter all the way up until the run up to the South Carolina primary. Lets not forget that, John Edwards won South Carolina in 2004 with 45% of the vote and Al Sharpton (who happens to be black) only got 16% of the vote. I think if you look at Bill Clinton's series of comments during the run up to South Carolina he was trying to characterize black voters and women voters as robots who cant see beyond race or gender. Its rather curious that none of this was beising said when Hillary Clinton was ahead among black voters by more than 30 points. I agree that a lot of this race discussion was created by the media, but the Clintons have shown their willingness to keep throwing gasoline on the fire. I see this as being for purely politcial reasons. I think the Clinton logic is that if they can force Obama to talk about race, or to to be perceived as complaining about race, his numbers may spike among blacks but fall among whites. Also if the debate becomes a race versus gender issue, this is a losing proposition for Obama. There are far more women voters than there are African American. So when I first heard Bill Clinton say that "there is not doubt that they are getting a lot of votes because of their race or gender", I was suspicious that he was pushing this narrative. Then after he repeated it for the 100th time, I was certain. I think black voters saw it and rejected this type of politics. I also reject this type of politics, which is why I am no longer a Hillary supporter.

Clinton has done nothing wrong!

Since your original post of claiming Bill Clinton was playing the race card, by inferring that Bills comments on Jesse Jackson were racially divisive, don't you think you need to report accurately the first time! It disgusts me how the media and obama campaign has played this race card manipulatively to the tee.

Wise up Democrats when you have the rightwing praising you and protecting you as Obama does, you had better wake up and smell the coffee, they are salivating at the chance to squash him.

Brain in Michigan-I agree with your statements totally. I am sorry also that the DNC is dismissing the vote of your state and Fla. in the primary. If I was a voter in that state I would consider a definate rebuke in Novemeber if this wasn't such an important election.

Even though I am a Hillary supporter, I regularly read the Obama website, and our household has received four mailings from the Obama organization in the last four days. What I am struck by is the lack of citations for the many claims of his seemingly major accomplishments "led both parties and passed the toughest ethics laws since Watergate..." while incomplete or misleading charges about her record have actual citations to reporters stories. But I followed one of these claiming she hadn't bothered to read the reports before the Iraq resolution vote, it turned out she didn't have a security clearance to read the entire N.I.E. report, only 6 senators actually did read it, and only some of those 6 voted against.
I see plenty of half truths and inaccurate claims coming from Barack's team. He just manages to paint himself as somehow purer by continuously referring to vague and inspirational visions of the future. Makes a great speech - but how does that translate into getting the job done?
How come nothing was made of Bobby Kennedy's kids- all of them accomplished public servants - coming out for Hillary? Robert Kennedy was intensely involved with the civil rights struggle, farms workers' plight and advising his brother Jack on the Bay of Pigs. Bobby was the Kennedy brother who would have made a truly great president!
Why not a Hillary-Barack ticket? He could get his feet wet in the job, and run the next time and win. She could start the reforms coming- he could keep them coming after he really learns the ropes!
(Kennedy served at least 13 years years in the House and Senate before running)

After reading that transcript, I agree that the media is deliberately "race baiting" Bill Clinton. Perhaps he didn't 'artfully' respond to the question, but you can't deny the "context" the reporter(s) brought up was about "race".

What amazes me is that not ONE PERSON in the media has questioned Obama on the four page talking points his SC Press secretary drafted trying to deliberately call into question the "Clinton's" commitment to race. There is a definate bias in the press. While this is an "election" for Americans, this appears to be a "pay back" or continuation of the media's distain and inability to bring Bill Clinton down (in the past). Really sad.

Thanks for speaking out, and saying it like it is. The falsehoods and deception that come out of the Clinton campaign usually just inundate the media with the media simply parroting out the Clintons' carefully coordinated news feed for the day.

When I see the attempts by the Hillary campaign to stir up the old Rezko news, I wonder, when is the media going to kill that once and for all (people didn't know he was a bad guy -- in fact, Rezko had a great rep as being in the forefront of developing lower income housing, etc. He and his subsidiaries donated to practically all politicians, including, apparently, to the Clintons)?

I also wonder, when is the main stream media going to address the ruthless, systematic voter suppression that occurred in Nevada by the Clinton campaign?

When is the media going to forcefully counter these ridiculous Rezko stories with the literal throng of criminals who donated to the Clintons? Whitewater, Juanita Broadderick's allegations of rape -- with witnesses?

The media, dear Billary fans, has not followed up on these stories, has been very kind, in fact -- count your blessings.

Is it worth pointing out - again - that the Clintons really need to brush up on their civil rights history? To say that John Lewis was with King "every step of the way" is ridiculous.

Thank God Ted endorsed Barack. He would've whined even more about the establishment picking on him. Now he has the establishment's oldest member pulling his strings. Ted couldn't win the white house on his own, now he has his boy (puppet!)

Oh I get it -- for weeks the pundits have been saying that Hillary is going to lose S. Carolina because of the high percentage of black voters that will go for Obama. They never stated WHY they would go for Obama, it was implied.

So now when Bill Clinton uses the same logic, he's excoriated by the same pundits.

People tend to vote for candidates that they feel a commonality with. Where's the surprise there? Is this a shock? Were people shocked when the south went for Clinton in '92? Or when evangelicals went for Huckabee?

Bill implied something very obvious and the PC police have got an APB out on him.

I'm sorry, but when did stating historical facts - like Jesse Jackson's wins in SC or M.L.K.'s ultimate dependence on L.B.J. for passage of the Civil Rights and Voting Rights Acts - become some form of race baiting? Could it have been when the press decided it would make an interesting "narrative" to imply that the Clintons are racists or at the very least horribly manipulative of this country's racial divide?

It's a link to a November 5, 2006 article on the Chicago Sun Times web site - titled "Obama on Rezko deal: It was a mistake" - which is pretty revealing. The reporters' second direct question to Barama asks him whether he or his wife ever did any legal work for Antoin "Tony" Rezko, the Chicago slumlord with whom Barama did a sweetheart real estate deal that resulted in the $1,650,000 Georgian revival mansion for the junior senator from Illinois (at a $300,000 discount). Barama answered "no" at the time, but didn't he actually confirm that he had billed Rezko for five hours of his professional time during Monday's SC debate? I guess my concern is that his "mistake" conveniently netted him a house most of us could only dream of living in, and he's certainly not talking about donating IT to charity like the ill-gotten $40,000 in Rezko contributions his campaign has identified so far.

There is a silly piece on abcnews.com showing the Clintons in one of the 100,000 photo ops they've probably taken, in this case with the dreaded Tony Rezko. I couldn't see any real estate docs in Hillary's hands, but the top right of the page should display a film clip by Brian Ross that shows Barama's Chicago mansion in living color.

There is also a hard-hitting "print" article by Ross that extends the Chicago Tribune story - yet when George Stephanopoulos interviewed Barama this week, he barely followed-up on his softball question about the cozy deal. I'm afraid most of the mainstream reporters are holding back on tough questioning about Barama's lack of integrity (as it was displayed with the Rezko "mistake") because they don't want to be shut out of future interviews if he's the nominee, or God help us, the next President. We've had just about eight years of an inexperienced politician with questionable moral certitude, and I really don't want eight more of the same, even if the guy is a Dem!

He chose Jackson for a reason. Any other interpretation of this exchange is incredibly naive.

The thing about clinton's comment is that Edwards won 4 years ago, and then lost the nomination. That would seem to be an appropriate comparison, but Clinton chose Jackson. 4 years ago v. 20 years ago. Why did he choose Jackson as his comparison?

Interesting. I wonder why Congressman Kendrick Meeks, on MSNBC today (Chris Jansing host) said that there was indeed another part to the question, asking Clinton something about historic Black candidates? Guess he must be another one of those Clinton liars... 'cuz we all know the MEDIA would NEVER lie!!

I thought Bill Clinton was widely known as being the "black" president, the one most empathetic. Now we see what he's really like....snide and conniving. Image belittling Obama's South Carolina win by saying it was only the black vote, and just wait till Hillary was in a "white" state.

I sure don't want to see those two back in the White House, and I'm a lifelong Democrat. I've had quite enough of them.

Where did this transcript originate? Can you please point to the original?

Well, it did start with an insulting question, obviously from a reporter who was, as Bill said, "baiting" him. Which is going on a lot, because the press insists on their narrative. By the way, Jesse Jackson is voting for Hillary, and he didn't see any racial undertone here. Of course, the always highly moral press does. Oh, and neither does Jesse's wife, who is voting for Clinton. Jesse Jr. is co-chair of the Obama campaign.
Obama's obviously won the press vote, but then, the press has always hated Bill, ever since the phony Whitewater scandal. But they're very good at treating people, even the ones running for president, like they treat Britney. I wonder when Obama's down time is coming? I guess when he's facing the Republicans, huh? Then it will be the McCain-Lieberman ticket for them. God knows, they never lie.

Honestly, I see no racebaiting. I see an out-of-control tabloid-like media and an uneducated citezenry grabbing at any straw, no matter how small it may be, to demonize Clinton, just like any other partisan inerest would.

Please listen. People feel strongly about Barack, and they are going to use every trick in the book to slam his opponents.

But in a State with the racial makeup and history of South Carolina, you would have to be joking yourself that Clinton's remark was not a relevant and valid observation. Bill Clinton was just noticing a trend.

I believe that you are truly a partisan of Barack's if you believe otherwise.

FYI, I am prepared to vote for either candidate for Prez, whoever gets the nomination. But I do believe Hillary's got the experience and the ability to unify, and more importantly, STOP THE MILITARY-INDUSTRIAL COMPLEX. I feel like Barack would get stonewalled.

thanks for posting the facts. The question was not about race, but he chose to answer it that way. No way it was a misstep. He and his wife both know to have answers ready for the quick come back. He will be as off the radar as possible between now and super tuesday. He was taking all the heat for her but now that has been used up. She's pushing in florida becasue she can win when she isn't running against anyone and will try to tout that win as momentum for super tuesday. It is time for Obama to name Joe Biden as his VP. That will carry Super Tuesday for him.

I believe he felt that the question regarding it taking two to beat Obama, was the baiting. The last time I looked Obama is an African-American. I'm not sure what your point is, was there something wrong with Jesse Jacson's win? Something he should be ashamed of? Why must everything get blown out of porportion?

1988 SC Jesse Jackson 55%
in second place with 19% -no, not Dukakis. It was Al Gore. Please learn some history about primaries and how meaningless Iowa and SC turn out to be in the end.

Katherine -deja vu all over again.

Not enough has been made of a very amusing fact amidst all the Clintons' attempt to Jessie-ize Obama: Edwards (yes, Edwards) got more of the white vote than Hillary in SC.

!!!

The *only* segment of the electorate that Clinton won was aged 65 and older. As for that, I believe we can attribute severe memory loss in those voters' inability to recall just how inadequate the Clintons were in office.

This is the year we can't afford Democrats nor Republicans to hold office. Throw them all out or we'll all suffer more.

The pressure has now shifted to HRC - if Obama carries either New York or California, the party is over and Hillary can head on home to New York or Arkansas or wherever. Divorce proceedings should begin within a week of Super Tuesday.

Obama,Obama,Obama - Change we can believe in and a new era away from the divisive sickness of the Clintons.

There is a Revolution, People! Wake up!!

WOW JAKE!!!!
YOU JUST KEEP POSTING THE CLINTON HATING COLUMNS. WHO DO YOU WORK FOR? I THOUGHT IT WAS ABC NOT THE OBAMA ELECTION COMMITTEE.

All that peace and prosperity during the Clinton Years...who needs it!
I Do...you go girl! (if I wrote that about Obama I be racist)
ps...thanks for the full transcript...

All that peace and prosperity during the Clinton Years...who needs it!
I Do...you go girl! (if I wrote that about Obama I be racist)
ps...thanks for the full transcript...

To all you smart buts out there. It doesn't matter who wins stupid. The jobs are not coming back, your taxes are going up, big brother is watching you, the cream will not float to the top and the military will stop all effort to change the present owners of the USA. Political parties. companies, countries, religions, news papeers, radio, liers, steelers, and last but not least MONEY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

It was a factual comment made in the context of the race issue playing large in SC. Not a bid deal in my book.

and by the way it was GORE who lost the election by NOT having Mr. Clinton on the campaign trail with him. If Bill had been involved they would have taken TN and AR easily.

who cares? south carolina is over. the outcome in south carolina all comes down to the fact that obama was in friendly territory.

Do you miss the point though? He pulled the jesse jackson card right out of thin air. The reporter asked him directly about how it takes 2 to beat Obama. He never answered that question and went right into the jesse jackson statement. If that werent bad enough, the clinton campaign is accusing MSNBC of editing the question. They are saying that the reporter actually asked him a race question (not true) then dubbed the 2 for 1 question over it. The stunning lengths the Clinton Campaign will go through to cover up their misdeeds.

Bill Clinton = Hillary's attack dog who will spin anything to try to make himself/his wife look good. Enough already!

Mark - Remember Clinton never really came out for Gore in 2000, nor did he come out in 2004.

But think about the comment does it mean he was not qualified?

I see nothing wrong with Bill campaigning for his wife, thou I do see something wrong with any of the dem/socialists winning the election!!

Al Gore would have been President in 2001 if he had taken Bill Clinton out with him on the campaign trail in 2000. Instead, V.P. Gore all but ignored Pres. Clinton.

Mark Kraft - Nothing and noone would of helped Dukakis ok , he got slaughtered in the election.

cohen - Obama is NO JFK, do not try to paint him as one, also having the support of a senator who murdered a girl I think does not do him well!

You want Change for the good then vote Romney. If you want change so your liberties are gone and you pay higher taxes then vote for a Dem/socialist elites who think they should only have money!

America has given Clintons of their dues for their good work, 8 years in White House. And then with so many scums of 'that woman' Monica, we need a fresh start - we need real change, not just change Hilary working for 35 years.

Lets change the trajectory, we need an inspiration leader. As Caroline Kenedy stated - 'A President like my father!'.

Nice to see an entire transcript for a change. Doesn't make Bill look like the demon he's been made out to be. Thanks Mr. Reporter. Appreciate you making me decide for myself. BTW, your own reason for making such a point seems so petty in light of the entire transcript. Thank you again.

"wow, can't wait until we see what hope and dreams the people of Illinois can tell us all about. haven't heard any of those testimonies."

Well, how about a great Senator with a 68% favorability rating?

Mark , are you saying that if you had a wife and she ran for president , you would think there was someone better in your lifetime to do the job?? You really are not looking at the picture.Maybe for most of you Obama supporters, you all have a different view on Family. I think strong families support eachother all the way. I know I would fight tooth and nail for anyone in my family, but thats me, you mark may not know what loyalty is.

Yeah yeah , we all know he cheater on her, but how many people can say their relationship was strong enough to manage the setback. People divorce nowadays because they woke up on the wrong side of the bed. I think their commitment to eachother is an example of how people need to express love for god.

ooops, I meant Obama second in 2008. but what's the difference. Come Super Tuesday the fairy tale ends.

2008 -Obama 55%
1988 -Jackson -55%

2008-Obama wins Iowa, Edawrds 2nd, Clinton 3rd
1988 -Gebhardt wins Iowa, Simon 2nd, Dukakis 3rd

2008 - Clinton wins NH, Gephardt 2nd, Edwards 3rd
1988 -Dukakis wins NH, Gebradt 2nd, Simon 3rd

Jan 2008-Obama invokes Reagan
Feb 1989 -Kennedy says loser Dems should of invoked Reagan

Deja vu.

Note Bill also says:
"(She’s the best qualified person I’ve had a chance to support for president in my lifetime. "

Isn't that a *HUGE* insult to Vice President Gore, who served in Congress from '76-'92, and then spent eight years as a Vice President?

... or are we just supposed to naturally assume that he's lying to us?

Excellent points, Mark. Thanks

One question:
If Bill Clinton thinks that Barack Obama's campaign is like Jesse Jackson's campaign in 1984 and 1988, does he also think that Hillary's campaign is like Dukakis' and Mondale's?

In both 1984 *AND* 1988, Jesse Jackson's loss of the party nominations led to a dramatic increase in black voter apathy in the general elections,both for Michael Dukakisand for Walter Mondale... and neither Mondale or Dukakis engaged in the Clinton's racebaiting. So why should any of us assume that Hillary Clinton will be able to get justifiably angry and disillusioned black voters out to vote for her? For this reason alone, she cannot win, and should not be our nominee.

In May 1988, in the run-up to the general election, Michael Dukakis was on the top of the world. The economy was in a recession, Reagan's approval rating was at 42% due to Iran-Contra, and Dukakis had a 49% - 39% advantage over George Bush, Sr. according to the New York Times. Republicans were defecting to the Democrats, with 28 percent of those who said they voted for President Reagan in 1984 indicating that they preferred Michael Dukakis over Vice President Bush.

Michael Dukakis chose Lloyd Bentsen as his running mate, despite the fact that polls indicated that having Jesse Jackson as a running mate would increase his share of the vote by an additional 3%.

If Dukakis did have an extra 3% or so in the general election, the following states would've either been in his column or too close to predict: California, Connecticut, Delaware, Illinois, Maryland, Missouri, Montana, New Mexico, Pennsylvania, South Dakota, and Vermont.

The moral:
Black voters matter... as do energized younger voters and charismatic leaders. Without them, it's very hard to win in not just the southern states, but in many of the other states as well, where there are oftentimes thin margins between victory and defeat.

It's not mentioned very often, but both black political volunteers and students often tend to be disproportionately active in doing a lot of the phonework and footwork for the Democratic Party that others in the party all too often avoid or look down upon.

We can't afford another Dukakis or Mondale-style loss... and we can't afford another Clinton.