In the wake of Hillary Clinton's 2-1 thrashing in South Carolina at the hands of the politician I typically refer to as BOOHOO (Barack O-bomba Overseas Hussein “Obambi” Obama), the spin from Mrs. Clinton's husband is that it has no more significance than Jesse Jackson's Palmetto State victories in 1984 and 1988.
Kausfiles blogger Mickey Kaus shows that the claim doesn't stand up to scrutiny (links and bolds are in original):
Obama got about a quarter (24%) of the white vote, according to exit polls.
..... Update: Alert emailer L finds the following in a Christian Science Monitor story from March 17, 1988: Although Jackson's white support was significantly higher in South Carolina than in 1984 - it is estimated this year at between 5 and 10 percent of the voters - he has not made much headway with populist, blue-collar whites ...
24% vs. 5-10%. It looks as if Bill Clinton's comparison will not work to his wife's advantage.... More: Tom Maguire asks the same question and gets the same answer, from an old New York Times story. The "5 percent to 10 percent" estimate of the white vote for Jackson seems to come from "party leaders."
As a clarification, the reason the Times got the 1988 information from "party leaders" is that, at least per Wikipedia, South Carolina was a Democratic caucus state in 1988. The Times's article further noted that Jackson received almost no white support in 1984.
Will Old Media outlets note the, ahem, vast white discrepancy between what Bill Clinton is claiming and the truth?
Cross-posted at BizzyBlog.com.
—Tom Blumer is president of a training and development company in Mason, Ohio, and is a contributing editor to NewsBusters
















Editor at Large
Comments Policy
I want...
January 27, 2008 - 12:13 ET by derbal...Billy Jeff to keep it up. He'll kill Hillary's campaign yet. :)
i want
January 27, 2008 - 14:24 ET by roni really believe that is what bill is trying to do even though his actions would make one think he wants her to be president. his ego only wants there to be 1 clinton remembered as president... HIM. of course if that were to happen he would cry and moan and blame everyone and everything around him while giggling and smiling inside.
I don't think so...
January 27, 2008 - 20:11 ET by heldmywI think he's desperate for the 'shared' presidency to try to put some shinola on the sh*t that is his legacy.
I think he would kill not to be known as 'the sleazebag prez who shoved a corona-corona in a fat interns tw*t".
And, when you get to boiling a presidency down to a single identifying sentence is pretty much what's going on his entry in the history books.
Washington - Defeated the British, First President of a New Nation.
Lincoln - Freed the Slaves, preserved the Union.
Carter - Boob, boob, boob, boobity, boob.
Clinton - Cigar, intern, tw*t.
G.W. Bush - Freed 2 countries of tyranny and forged a lasting bond with the Middle East.
It'll be in the history books, but they'll clean it up some...
That just about sums it up!
January 27, 2008 - 21:52 ET by Gary P JacksonThat just about sums it up!
South Carolina Race War
January 27, 2008 - 12:14 ET by billbAs a regular viewer of FNC, I must say I'm very dissapointed at the discussion of the Dem race in SC. For 10 minutes the only point was race. No differences on policy, the war, economy.But then again, maybe that is the only difference!
Also, Obama isn't a
January 27, 2008 - 12:15 ET by ArchConservativeAlso, Obama isn't a white-hating, Jew-bashing, Hymietown-saying, adultering, Rainbow Coalition-fund-embezzeling, hate monger like Jesse. Plus he's kicking Clinton butt, so even though I don't like any of his policies I have to say: Run, Obama Run!
You support the troops by supporting the mission! If you don't support the mission, have the guts to say you don't support the troops.
On MTP this AM the panel
January 27, 2008 - 12:20 ET by motherbeltOn MTP this AM the panel talk was about this being the second of a two-stage effort by the Clintons to paint Obama as "the black candidate." First Mrs. Clinton's MLK reference, and now Bill's Jesse Jackson comparison.
My question: assuming this is their plan, do you think it's something that only the "inside the beltway" crowd see and pick up on, or is this a ploy that will succeed with the general electorate even on a subliminal level, and turn them against Obama?
I Highly Doubt It
January 27, 2008 - 12:34 ET by Wildcatter1980Even if you are unwilling to concede that the majority of Old Media journalists are "liberals" and Democrats, they would prefer to have a "fight" to cover. One way to do that is to not challenge the Clintons in their attempt to spin SC as a "race" issue.
Just my $0.02
True, Obama is remarkably
January 27, 2008 - 12:44 ET by Jack BauerTrue, Obama is remarkably facile and glib as he spouts nothing but retread socialism. But the guy is JFK compared to the Rev. Race Hustler.
Though it is interesting in how Billy boy would even tangentially denigrate his spiritual adviser Jackson.
Anyone remember the nauseating1998 press conference on the White House lawn, with the Rev clutching his bible after spending the afternoon counseling the Prez for his Lewinsky moments.
I'm still surprised a bolt of lightning didn't smite him where he stood.
Jack
January 27, 2008 - 13:50 ET by bigtimerAnyone remember the nauseating1998 press conference on the White House lawn, with the Rev clutching his bible after spending the afternoon counseling the Prez for his Lewinsky moments.
I do Jack...very well...sickening indeed.
What is really hysterical we came to find out later that Jackson was having an affair (or two...lol) of his own at the time wasn't he?
A bolt of lightening indeed.
BT -- too funny. Jackson
January 27, 2008 - 14:03 ET by Jack BauerBT -- too funny.
Jackson actually went to the mat for the Philanderer-in-Chief, while he was also doin' the nasty with a person not of the married persuasion!
And as a reward, he's used as a pay off to a race tinged hit against Obama.
I'm shocked. If you can't trust the Clintons who can you trust!
In answer to the last
January 27, 2008 - 13:47 ET by bigtimerIn answer to the last question here...I have seen the msm since last night after the primary votes tallied very much digging into the discrepancies or better yet total lies by Bill Clinton vs. Jessssshhhheee Jackson when it comes to the white voters ect...this topic was also on three different networks this morning also...
Delightful....
I think the Clintoon plan of conquer and divide within their scorched earth policy may not work at all for a change...the press are fighting them tooth and toe-nail it seems....for now anyway.
Obama differs from Jackson only in.....
January 27, 2008 - 14:57 ET by Clutch CargoIn 1984 and 1988, everyone on the planet knew Jesse Jackson was a Democratic throw-away candidate, and didn't stand a chance of winning the nomination much less the Presidency.
Bombo-Bracka, on the other hand, is a viable and popular REAL candidate who has systematically been dismantling the Clinton machine like a mechanical genius.
Not to mention...
January 27, 2008 - 16:32 ET by coffee260South Carolina Had no Democratic Presidential Primary in either 1984 Nor 1988!
Game...Set...Match...
Billary
January 27, 2008 - 15:05 ET by chuckoI was appalled when I saw not Hillary, but Wild Bill on my TV last night, and thanking "Independents" and others for supporting "me." It's as if he thinks he running for a third term! Digusting.
Equally disgusting though, is the author of this otherwise good article's reference to Hillary's main rival as ..."Overseas Hussein" Obama. I don't agree with much of his politics but one thing is clear: he is NOT a radical Muslim and never was. I don't know if this was Mr. Blumer's implication here, but it's wrong and pretty low, nonetheless.
chucko... In reference to
January 27, 2008 - 15:24 ET by bigtimerchucko...
In reference to your first paragraph in your post...I too heard that pathetic rambling from Billary last night...it was all me me me...
As always.
Narcissistic lying rapist....the devils got him tooth and nail now.
Thanks, guys, I caught a
January 27, 2008 - 17:02 ET by motherbeltThanks, guys, I caught a blurb on TV this AM, something about that, but didn't hear the whole thing.
This is why I say this is a Team Event....NO ONE should be in any doubt about that.
motherbelt
January 27, 2008 - 17:06 ET by botgthere is no 'Bill' in team
Supreme Court, National Security, Borders, Fiscal Restraint, my litmus test for President.
-
January 27, 2008 - 22:16 ET by dahliatraverslol
The Overseas Reference
January 27, 2008 - 19:38 ET by Tom BlumerChucko, you would understand the "overseas" reference if you had followed the link on the word:
He's claiming that he's qualified because of his "overseas" experiences -- hence that element his nickname. Religion has nothing to do with it.
Hill says it is Love made him do it!!!
January 27, 2008 - 18:17 ET by docbSenator Obama got more votes in every catagory but the MSM buzz still wants to paint it as racist to further the clinton agenda. It worked for a while but surprise ...we have more outlets for news and opinion. MSM has lost it's power to push us into a box of ignorance. The clintons took a calculated risk to lose in the short run but to count on the Dem's to unite behind her in the general. If it works, it will be at a horrendous price to us Democrats and resultantly the nation.. That will never be forgotten or forgiven. I see them as co-dependent enablers--who will do ANYTHING to maintain the illusion of the relationship and inherent power it gives them. This so evident in their manner, lack of ideology, desperation, lies and yes, even the theft of slogans and race baiting. When a female stays with a serial philanderer it sends the message of low selfesteem and a lack of respect for their children. During the last reported scandal, they went to a known philanderer for counseling, J Jackson. This is far from a 'tough old bird'. She runs and has others fight her dirty battles. She is totally shut down..note no tears ran down her cheeks and she went right back in the same sentence to her stump speech. They get my pity but NO Sympathy or vote. .Just out Ted Kennendy is endorsing Obama on Monday...and hillery says it was LOVE that made bill slime Obama...In your Dreams,hillery!!!!
Tom
January 27, 2008 - 22:51 ET by chuckoI get and totally agree with the "overseas" part - it is a joke that he uses that 4 years as a kid in Indonesia as evidence he understands the world better, but your nickname "BOOHOO" is cheesy and classless, mostly due to your "Hussein" reference. Obama, a Christian, liberal as he is, has disavowed that middle name he was given at birth by his father, and so any such reference to his middle name, whether done by righties or lefties (Bob Kerrey, Chris Matthews) is out-of-bounds and is only done to scare people/voters into thinking he's a Muslim who can't be trusted as commander-in-chief. It makes people think of Saddam Hussein, most likely.
Trying to be objective in this campaign is hard enough. Trying to be respectful of people and a politician's identity should be no problem. Apparently you just can't help yourself and enjoy taking cheap shots at those you disagree with politically. Not even Alan Keyes stooped that low when he unsuccessfully ran against him in the IL Senate four years ago.
Obama-Hussein
January 28, 2008 - 01:57 ET by Tom BlumerChucko:
- Hussein IS his middle name.
- As long as it IS his middle name, the mere mention of it (which is all I am doing) is NOT out of bounds.
- The use of middle names to advance or denigrate the perception of candidates, politicians, and presidents has a long and honored history. You'll note in the article that some think Obama should embrace his middle name.
- I'm not going to pretend to be "objective." Instead, I'll "just" be fair, and have a bit of fun along the way.
So if you don't like "BOOHOO" ONLY because of the middle name, I don't think you have a case.
If you want to claim that it is otherwise disrespectful, well, let's look at the other two Os that make up the parts of the name that aren't part of his real name:
- "O-Bomba" links to a cartoon relating to the time last year when he said that invading Pakistan unilaterally to get Osama Bin Laden might not be such a bad idea. Unfair? He said it.
- "Obambi" is a name first given to Obama by some in the Chicago-area press. It first gained national currency courtesy of the NY Times's Maureen Dowd, who had, and probably still has, concerns about his masculine qualities. The guy is sennnnnnnsitive about his ears -- so sensitive that he chided Dowd for writing about them 50 DAYS later. So there's plenty of basis for the "Obambi" reference. I didn't come up with the name; others did.
Every time the term BOOHOO appears, there is at least one full description of what it stands for, with links. I would also argue that "BOOHOO" simultaneously captures the weenie factor that others have written extensively about.
So now that all six letters in BOOHOO have been successfully explained and (in my opinion) defended, the only remaining objection is that folks like you might think it's a cheap shot anyway. Fair enough. I don't, because it has support.
Tom...Obama's actual quote
January 28, 2008 - 03:20 ET by JerTom...Obama's actual quote about going after bin Laden has been posted before. Even though I didn't completely agree with his statement, what he actually proposed wasn't nearly as rash and aggressive as your "invading Pakistan unilaterally" phrase implies.
Furthermore, you'll recall the recent pledge by McCain to follow bin Laden to the "gates of Hell" to apprehend him--a locale even more foreboding than Pakistan I suspect.
Jer
Pakistan
January 28, 2008 - 04:10 ET by Tom BlumerHere is how ABC reported it:
Here'a what he said (Page 6; BTW, I agree that at some point what he said might be necessary):
My only lack of clarity was not to note that invading Pakistan would be for the purpose of taking out terrorists, not taking down the government.