A controversy has been growing over the remarks Bill Clinton made concerning Barack Obama's primary win last night in South Carolina. Bill cited the primary in 1988 in which Jesse Jackson won with a margin of victory that was almost the same as Obama's, but lost the nomination. Many Obama supporters found a racist or race-baiting intent in it. Some of us who remember the 1988 race thought Bill was recalling the fact that Jackson enjoyed a commanding triumph in South Carolina, too; then, failing to sustain his momentum, the nomination was won by Michael Dukakis (by an approximate 2:1 delegate ratio).
A couple of posts I have seen question why the 2004 primary win of John Edwards was not cited instead. If you look at the results, you will see that Edwards won by a smaller margin in a more-crowded field.
(NOTE: Due to formating restrictions, the tables will not be aligned. Visiting the page cited is recommended.)
Edwards 131,174 45%
Kerry 88,508 30%
Sharpton 28,201 10%
Clark 21,011 7%
Dean 13,815 5%
Lieberman 7,147 2%
Kucinich 1,319 1%
(
http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2004/primaries/pages/states/SC/)
Here is a re-cap of yesterday's victory for Barack Obama:
Obama 295,091 55%
Clinton 141,128 27%
Edwards 93,552 18%
Kucinich 551 <1%
(
http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/primaries/results/state/#SC)
I was unable to find a similar breakdown for the 1988 Democratic caucus in South Carolina, but I did find a Wikipedia article with a synopsis of the results stretching back to 1988. I have highlighted some relevant parts in bold:
* 1988: In 1988, South Carolina Democrats held a caucus rather than a primary. Jesse Jackson won, defeating Al Gore with
approximately 55% of the vote.* 1992: Bill Clinton won with approximately 69% of the vote, defeating Paul Tsongas.
* 1996: Uncontested (Clinton was the incumbent president and was renominated).
* 2000: Al Gore won with 92% of the vote, defeating Bill Bradley.
* 2004:
John Edwards won with 45% of the vote, defeating John Kerry.
* 2008: Barack Obama won, defeating Hillary Rodham Clinton and John Edwards, with
approximately 55% of the vote.(
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/South_Carolina_primary)
The issue of race is certainly prominent in South Carolina politics. Yet the 1988 and 2008 races are notable for their similarities ASIDE from race. Both Obama and Jackson got 55%, an electoral rout. Clinton and Gore did as well or better in different races, but those had no real similarities to the 1988 caucus. The 2004 primary shows a much different distribution of loyalties. So the comparison between Jackson and Obama is even more similar than just the racial demographics alone would indicate. The main difference is that a significantly higher proportion of
white voters favored Barack Obama than for Jesse Jackson in 1988.
Many partisans of Obama have taken to demonizing the Clintons, following 15 years of demonization from some of the USA's radical left movement. The standard narrative is that "the Clintons will do anything to win" and, as noted, "the Clintons are actively race-baiting". I strongly disagree with each of these destructive "memes".
The persistent idea that "they will do anything to win" can not be supported by anyone remembering previous primaries. I personally find this is one of the mildest open (i.e., no party incumbent) primary seasons I can recall. But 2004, the last one, was milder still. But the 1968 Democratic primary season was a partisan bloodbath, which turned into a real-life bloodbath at the convention in Chicago. Hubert Humphrey was the object of scorn, with the rhetoric similar to today's anti-Clinton rhetoric. And the 1980 primary season that pitted Jimmy Carter against Teddy Kennedy resulted in strong grudges in each of their camps that facilitated the ascension and near-deification of Ronald Reagan. The third-party candidacy of John Anderson also complicated the election from early on and drew heavily from the Democrats.
In contrast to the restraint of BHO and HRC, it is their surrogates, especially their on-line surrogates, who are dueling with the sharpened rapiers. Those supporters would be ...
US. There is a great deal of fun to be had in electoral sparring, but some of the accusations are absurd. Most of the mention of race is now coming from a) online Obama supporters, in reaction to the alleged Clinton misbehavior, and b) the press, which thrives on conflict. There have been several inept statements made by Clinton surrogates, and at least one blunder by Hillary that was given intense press scrutiny, but the charges of malice are excessive. I can understand the Obama supporters looking at the Clintons as The Enemy and seeing a sinister motive behind their every action, but the press can not be forgiven for keeping the issue of race so highlighted. Most Democrats strongly DISapprove of racial politics.
Hopefully, this will put Bill's remarks into the perspective from which he made them, and allow Obama's supporters to analyze the numerical results as well. But I am certain that many Obama partisans will dismiss it and continue to apply the worst possible rationale to the Clinton campaign for any given event, good or bad.
We should keep in mind that there are other factors than race making this primary season what it is, and that it is possible to compare Black statesmen without turning it into an occasion for race-baiting. Barack Obama is not just the first Black candidate for president who has an excellent chance of being elected, he is also a talented and charismatic leader independent of considerations of his race. Even as a Clinton partisan, I look forward to him having a long and distinguished career regardless of the outcome of this year's primary and general elections.
--p!
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
