Why Does Bill Clinton Compare Obama's S.C. Win To Jesse Jackson's?

Because he's still the same ignorant, uninformed, arogant hillbilly arkansass asshole that he was when he was in the white house

Jackson didn't win Iowa, nor was Jackson even in New Hampshire, further Jackson did not come out of Nevada with more delagates (I acknowledge that Hilliary had a few more votes). Lastly, Jackson did not leave SC with a delagate lead (Yes a lead, super delagates don't count in the begining, understanding that they can change their mind), a lead in most votes. and having brought record numbers of people to the polls everywhere he goes. If we don't elect him the democratic choice we will kill the momentum of new concern in politics that his campaign has brought to this nation-Something special is going on. There were other wins Al Gore, Edwards but Jackson was a slick move. While Clinton got the title the first Black President, he is far from that. It just took the right situation to bring it out. This explains why this Black man didn't have more Blacks in the white than George Bush.

On another note, I think we forget that Obama is also White. His mother is White. I would like him if he had "Poka dots." because of his background and political style; but he is not a Black candidate. Clinton never said Obama was a Black Canidate, and he never had sex with Monika Lewinsky. I guess its like sex it's how you define said. If you imply somethig you said it. As we look at the history of this campain Clinton has implied a lot about this Black candidate.

No matter what Bill Clinton says it will be twisted by the right wing talk show bozos and FOX Network. That's what these guys are paid to do. In fact, EVERYTHING any democrat says is twisted to make it sound sinister. The ditto-heads eat this stuff up because their already primed to accept this kind of BS. Realistically, the Bush Junta got us into a war with no natueral stopping place, certainly didn't reverse the flow of American wealth away from the American wage-earner, give much thought to the way that the US is getting raped by unfair trade practices, ignored every environmental law possible, 'secret-tized' his entire administration, dissed the US constitution, left the borders wide open and spent more time dealing with 'gay' marriage than with issues that affect 90% of the American people. Since none of that can be explained away I guess mischaracterizing a few off the cuff words by Bill Clinton is suposed to make us forget about the antics of the Goofball-in-Chief and the strange characters that want to perpetuate the nonsense of the last almost eight years. I don't think so!

No, with the third largest black population by state, SC AND the fact that the last time a democratic presidential nominee won the state of SC was in 1960 (JFK), what happens in SC insn't very indicative of who will win the the dem. pres. nomination. I think Bill was just stating the facts that have been all over the news....Obama won the majority of black votes, there's a lot of black votes in SC...the SC presidential vote historically (since 1960) has always gone to the republican canidate anyway.

Simply said, a win in SC is more important for the Republican nominee, not so much for the democratic nominee

He's not making it a black-white thing. He's just simply saying, good for Obama, but this doesn't mean squwat. Obama needs to win a state that typically goes to a democrat in a presidential election like New Hampshire, Nevada, California, New York, Pennsylvania NOT Iowa or SC

If Obama said that Jessie Jackson won twice in SC during his 2 presidential campaigns - no one would have said anything.

President Clinton was just stating a fact in response to a reporter's question. Political analyst & commentator Pat Buchanon also said the same thing.

Nothing wrong with stating facts, but it's not fair when the media distorts it into something perceived as divisive.

The media already made it black versus white. SC is 50% black voters and most of them voted for Obama. What does that tell you. It may be an indication that he's a winner or it may be just due to the black vote. February 5th results will answer that question.

Not really. He's stating a fact. Look at the numbers. About 80% of Black voters voted for Obama. He's not implying that it is black versus whites. He's implying Blacks "in South Carolina" rally together and it is a poor indicator of results in other primaries among other black populations and other voters elsewhere.

He is making every attempt to covertly draw attention to Obama's race. I think it is a disgusting tactic but in the end it works to the Clintons advantage because instead of talking about the candidate's qualifications and message, here we are once again discussing race.

Maybe it was fresh on Clinton's mind how much Jesse Jackson hated Obama. On a Fox interview, Jesse Jackson (thinking the microphones were turned off) was asked by the other black guy who was being interview, "What do your think of Obama"? Jackson replied, "I would like to cuts his ******* nuts off"? So why didn't the Republicans run with this story instead of helping the Democrats suppress it? Because they are idiots. They try and play by moral rules, when the Dems have no rules.

Clinton is minimizing Obama's win. What's he's really saying is the black guy ain't got a chance.