Home > Politics > Political Punch

Political Punch

Power, pop, and probings from ABC News Senior White House Correspondent Jake Tapper

« Previous | Main | Next »

False Pushback from Clinton Allies

January 28, 2008 1:19 PM

Some supporters of Sen. Hillary Clinton, D-NY, are inaccurately saying that her husband's comparison of Sen. Barack Obama, D-Illinois, to Rev. Jesse Jackson came only because a reporter had asked the former president whether a black candidate can win South Carolina, thus raising the subject.

The larger charge is that reporters were falsely painting the president as race-baiting.

It's not true. Clinton brought up Jackson with no mention of Jackson by reporters, and with no mention of the subject of whether an African-American can win by reporters.

Here's the whole transcript:

Bill Clinton: Wow. Hi, Everybody.

Reporter: How’s it going for you this morning, Mr. President?

BC: Oh, good. You know, I like election days and I think it’s interesting they vote on Saturday here, it makes it easier for working people to go. You know, there’s really not much you can do to change a lot of votes, but by stirring around you may induce people who are for you to go ahead and vote when they might not have.

Reporter: You proud of what you’ve done here in South Carolina?

BC: Oh yeah, we’ve done our best, and we’ve had, I particularly have enjoyed, you know, my role here has been almost exclusively to go around and do town meetings and answer questions, that’s most of what I’ve done, and I’ve really enjoyed that. I think it’s been immensely impressive to me to see in the audiences whether they were predominately African American, predominately white, or totally integrated, there has not been a great deal of difference in the questions people ask.

If the voters really are intensely interested in what we can do to change the economic direction of the country, what we can do about healthcare, what we can do to restore our country’s standing in the world.

And there doesn’t seem to be even a great deal of difference in the questions asked, depending on who they’re supporting, so I’ve – I like that, because, you know, I just answer questions. They know I know some things about this stuff, I make the case for Hillary as best I can, but basically I just tell them why I’m for Hillary, and then I answer their questions.

Reporter: That said, some of the folks in your own party have accused you of race baiting here.

BC: Yeah, well I would refer them to what John Lewis and Andrew Young – two people left who were with Martin Luther King every step of the way – said. I don’t have to defend myself on civil rights, and John Lewis and Andrew Young said what needed to be said about that. There’s nothing left for me to say.

Reporter: Mr. President, Senator Kerry that – had some critical comments too about some of the things that have gone on this week. He said being a former president doesn’t give you a license to abuse the truth. Just wanted your reaction to that.

BC: Yes, but did you notice he didn’t specify anything? You notice that? They never do. They hurl these charges, but nothing is specified. I’m not taking the bait today. I did what I could to help Senator Kerry every time he needed me, and every time he asked me, and I have no -- he can support whomever he wants, for whatever reason he wants, but there’s nothing for me to respond to because I don’t believe in labeling, I think he should have specifics, so today we just want everybody to vote.

David Wright: What does it say about Barack Obama that it takes two of you to beat him?
BC: [Laughs] That’s just bait, too. Jesse Jackson won 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 got a, he is a good candidate, with a good organization.

DW: He says he is sometimes not sure who his opponent is, you or his wife.

BC: That is bait, too.

DW: Your wife, rather, sorry.

BC: I am working for my wife because I believe she’d be the best president. If weren't married, I'd be working for her if she asked me to. And his wife’s done a good job for him, and --

DW: She’s not an ex-president of the United States, though.

BC: I know but that doesn’t mean that – I’m still a citizen now, when, you know, I can't wait to get back to my foundation work. I’m not a direct, directly involved in politics but I am concerned about my country and I think she’d be the best president.

And I would be working for her if we had never been married. She’s the best qualified person I’ve had a chance to support for president in my lifetime. For, because of the variety of experiences she’s had but because of the things she has done in every stage of her life to change other people’s lives for the better, and that’s what I say, my message has been 99.9 percent positive for 100 percent of this campaign.

Not only about her, but about the other candidates. And I think that when I think she’s being misrepresented I have a right to try to, with factual accuracy, set the record straight, which is what I have tried to do.
Andy Fies: Do you feel that you’re more actively involved than you ever thought you’d be at this point?

BC: Not exactly, I just –

AF: Or out on the trail more?

BC: No, I just, you know -- before what I was doing was trying to help her raise funds and not make any public impression, because I wanted America to have time to get to know her, the way New Yorkers have, the way people in Arkansas do. You know, she’s doing terrifically well in the polls down there because they know her. She did well in the Republican as well as Democratic areas of New York because they know her. She’s done immensely well in the U.S. Senate, passing bills with Republicans with stunning levels of success because they know her.

So - but now, you know, what happened is there’s so many elections happening so fast that you need all your family members, I mean I think Chelsea’s working in a way I’m not sure she thought she would be, we just all wanted to be hands on deck and I think it’s been the right thing, it’s kind of a family affair. My 88-year-old mother-in-law is working harder than she thought she would, but she likes it.

Oh yeah, I like this, I like the one thing I’ve been criticized for that I think is accurate - I have not said anything that is factually inaccurate and that’s why when people say I have they never specify because they know I’ll win the fight. But the - but I do think that the difference between now and running when I ran for myself, shoot, when I ran in ‘92 I could have cared less what anybody said about me.

Really, I didn’t. I mean, you just go right on, you’ve got your positive message, you stay on message, if somebody has an argument, you have an argument. When it’s your, spouse I think it’s harder to take when you hear people say things and call them names for months. That’s harder, you know, and I think I was a little hot in New Hampshire, and I think I got criticized for that, and one person said to me, she said, I talked to one person who had been critical, who said, look you told the truth, everything you said was true, but people don't want to see you mad about it. Just relax, chill out. And I think that’s, that was right, and I think that’s advice that I should have taken and I have tried to take.

David Wright: That’s Congressman Clyburn said too, chill out.

BC: Yeah, but he, Congressman Clyburn is a good man and he, he didn't dispute the accuracy of what I said, he just said that, that, people, we don’t want to get mad, and I agree with that, I don’t – I agree with that. We have got to try and hold everything together here because we’ve got a big campaign to win in the fall, whatever happens in this primary, and our side wants to change the economic and foreign policy direction of this country. And in order to do it, we’ve after – we’ll have a vigorous primary fight then we’ve got to put our party back together. And I am looking forward to that. I --

DW: But is that going to be tougher to do after the ugliness of South Carolina?

BC: No, man you've never been in very many campaigns if you think this was ugly, this was a cakewalk. This is not any big deal. This is a, you know I -- ever since, when I first stared running for president I was used to people just mauling me. You know, in some ways it hasn't been as ugly as Iowa was, you know it just didn’t get, the ugliness just was not publicized. The differences were not publicized.

[Crosstalk]

Well, I mean Hillary was called untruthful, manipulative, changing her position on everything, you know, a lot of things. You’ve just got to blow through this, that just all happens, it’s just part of politics, and you just shouldn't take the bait, you should be positive and go on and make our cases. But when it’s over, if you listen to - the most important thing to happen in that debate, that achieved no notice, was when they all sat down and cooled down, in the second part of the debate here in South Carolina, and all of them observed that they were all discussing their different approaches to issues that weren't even being discussed in the Republican primary. That’s the most important thing, because keep in mind, you have -- I am not being critical. But you have to cover this race as a horse race between candidates, but the really, the thing that matters to the people who are going there and voting is how their lives are going to change. So in the end the election is really about the American people and how their lives will change.

So for me as a citizen the most important thing that happened in that last debate was to see Senator Obama and Senator Edwards and Hillary agree that they were talking about things and caring about things that were not even being discussed in the other primary and that keeps saying to America we need to make a change and that means that whoever we nominate in this process can still be elected in the fall, that’s what we’ve got to do.

We’ve all got to hold it -- They should argue, it’s healthy, heck, let them argue about who’s got the best healthcare plan, who’s got the best stimulus plan, let them do that. But the main thing is to do it in a way that makes it clear to the American people that our party represents the fundamental departure in American needs, and that’s what I think’s going to happen. I basically feel good about it. But, you know, by the standards of southern politics and what I went through in the ‘80s at home, and even the ‘92 campaign, this has been a walk in the park there’s not much negative. We just need get this show on the road and get back to making our positive cases. All of us.

Staff: Thanks, guys.

Reporter: [unintelligible]

BC: Yeah I think they both did a good job, if you look at it, the campaign, the debate ended on a positive note and nearly as I can tell from just the press coverage I read, you know, I mean he put a few licks on her, and other people said what they said, but both of these, these campaigns are making a very -- three different distinct, positive appeals to their voters. [Crosstalk] And that’s what I think, and I think you’re going to it because I think we’ll have a good turnout today, but I -- you shouldn’t, you guys, you know, that stuff happens, but it’s very bad to have 100 percent of the interpretation of the campaign come out of 2 or 3 percent at most of what is said. If you look at the general thing, the Democrats offer a rather dramatic change in economic and foreign policy from the Republicans. And that’s what the American people are looking for. And I say -- Ok, so you’re going to change, so how will the healthcare deal work, how will the economic deal work. I’ve been going -- all I do is go to these meetings and let people ask questions, so I know how they look at it. And that’s good for us. And we’ll keep it together, it’ll be fine.

BC: Thank you.

- jpt

January 28, 2008 | Permalink | Share | User Comments (48)

User Comments

Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

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??

Posted by: Eleanora Feucht | Feb 7, 2008 9:38:43 PM

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.

Posted by: TuckerDemps | Jan 30, 2008 10:47:15 AM

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.

Posted by: diabismit | Jan 29, 2008 5:23:25 PM

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.

Posted by: TheMan | Jan 29, 2008 11:44:36 AM

Clinton has done nothing wrong!

Posted by: Lezident | Jan 29, 2008 10:48:57 AM

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.

Posted by: Sarah | Jan 29, 2008 8:54:51 AM

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.

Posted by: DeeDee | Jan 29, 2008 8:07:43 AM

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)

Posted by: nanci e | Jan 29, 2008 12:47:00 AM

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.

Posted by: Brian in Michigan | Jan 28, 2008 11:51:20 PM

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.

Posted by: Jessie | Jan 28, 2008 8:45:22 PM

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.

Posted by: krasovic | Jan 28, 2008 7:23:36 PM

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!)

Posted by: PD | Jan 28, 2008 7:10:21 PM

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.

Posted by: M. Lee | Jan 28, 2008 6:49:39 PM

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!

Posted by: Tomas Gordon | Jan 28, 2008 6:41:32 PM

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

Posted by: Howard B. | Jan 28, 2008 5:49:23 PM

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?

Posted by: felipe | Jan 28, 2008 5:33:32 PM

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!!

Posted by: jenmarie | Jan 28, 2008 5:26:07 PM

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.

Posted by: MizLiz | Jan 28, 2008 5:24:18 PM

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

Posted by: Dormaphaea | Jan 28, 2008 5:12:17 PM

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.

Posted by: Jim H | Jan 28, 2008 5:02:31 PM

Next Comments »

Post a comment





 

POLITICAL VIDEOS