This is a little weird. MSNBC was just showing Bill Clinton speaking in what seemed sort of like a concession speech in Independence, Missouri. A little earlier they read a concession statement from Hillary. But it’s not clear to me that she’s going to speak tonight.
Not sure whether the other nets showed the Bill speech or no. So it’s not clear to me how much this was a conscious strategy on the part of the Clinton camp or whether MSNBC just took it upon themselves to televise Bill’s speech.
Late Update: Earlier MSNBC had suggested they weren’t clear that Hillary Clinton was going to speak. Not so. Apparently she’s going to speak at about 9:30 PM Eastern.
Just off the AP wire …
Clinton campaign strategists denied any intentional effort to stir the racial debate. But they said they believe the fallout has had the effect of branding Obama as “the black candidate,” a tag that could hurt him outside the South.
I guess they’re really broken up about it.
The big news we’re covering, of course, is the result of the South Carolina primary. But there’s also some big news out of Florida. The state’s very popular Republican Governor, Charlie Crist, has endorsed John McCain. Normally endorsements don’t mean much. And this one may not either. But McCain and Romney, as I noted earlier, could scarcely be closer in the polls right now. So on top of the endorsement of Sen. Martinez (R-FL), which came yesterday yesterday, this could be significant.
The Clinton campaign clearly made a decision to close the door on the South Carolina campaign with as little discussion as possible. Hillary flew out of the state early in the evening to Nashville where she gave her standard stump speech with a brief reference to Obama’s win in South Carolina. Most of the networks seemed to cut away from her speech well before it was over — after five minutes or so.
It’s a bold move. I’m curious how people think it played. Let me know.
Mitt has moved into a tie with John McCain in Florida, in the latest Zogby tracking poll. Romney gained three points from yesterday’s tracking poll, but that was before last night’s big McCain endorsement from Gov. Charlie Crist.
As for Rudy’s firewall, Huckabee has now passed him for third. The good news for Rudy is he remains significantly ahead of his nemesis Ron Paul. At least for now.
Bill Clinton’s reference to Jesse Jackson’s wins in South Carolina pretty much speaks for itself. But there’s a further part of the story that’s well worth pointing out. TPM Reader JZ wrote in last night to point out that in 1984 and 1988, the nominations were pretty much sewn up by Walter Mondale and Michael Dukakis by the time South Carolina’s caucuses (at the time it was a caucus not a primary) rolled around. So they were at best lightly contested. This jibed with my memory, but I wasn’t sure. So I went back and looked up some old articles. And sure enough he’s right. I thought I’d share a couple quick clips with as further illustration …
First, from the Christian Science Monitor, March 15th, 1984 …
South Carolina listened for a clear message from its Southern neighbors on Super Tuesday,” but heard only a garbled one. So Democrats in the state will go to caucus meetings Saturday guided by their own, often uncertain leanings in the campaign for a presidential nominee.
The presidential race has almost bypassed them, since most of the candidates avoided the home turf of the popular Sen. Ernest Hollings. Since he bowed out, South Carolina has been left in a quandary.
Jesse Jackson, born in the state, has a core of support within the black community. And in only two weeks a spirited, grass-roots effort for him has appeared almost from nowhere and with almost no funds.
But the big winner on Saturday is expected to be Mr. No-name: The state has a long tradition of picking uncommitted delegates.
Second, from March 11th, 1988 in Newsday …
In between the mighty Super Tuesday wave of last week and the big roller of next Tuesday’s Illinois primary, there is a nice little backwash of a Democratic contest tomorrow that will neither dash hopes nor do much to elevate them.
This is the South Carolina caucus, too late to point the way to who will get the Democratic nomination and too small to be decisive in terms of delegate numbers.
Nevertheless, there it is, not 1,307 delegates like Super Tuesday’s states offered, not the Illinois prize of 173 delegates, but a 44-delegate package that is good to have but not so terrible if it is lost either. And a few of the Democrats are making their play.
“Jesse Jackson is going to win this caucus,” said Bill Prince, a government lobbying specialist for an ad agency here. “And he’s going to win it big.”
This is talk one might expect from a Jackson supporter. But Prince is state coordinator for Rep. Richard Gephardt of Missouri, whose campaign has been devastated by unexpected Super Tuesday rejections.
“Half the people at the caucuses will be black,” Prince said, adding that Jackson, a native of Greenville, is a favorite son. “We have no illusions of finishing first or even second,” he said.
By contrast, backers of Sen. Albert Gore Jr. of Tennessee, the conqueror of Gephardt on Super Tuesday, are elated. While the Gephardt campaign canceled plans for commercials here, the Gore camp has decided to put on a two-day TV and radio effort to start today.
…
The supporters of Massachusetts Gov. Michael Dukakis are also cheered by their candidate’s Super Tuesday victories and the surge it might give him in South Carolina. They’ve sent out a mailing to thousands of prospective caucus delegates and have begun phone-bank operations.
“I would be very pleased with a third-place finish,” said Mike Pritchard, an active Dukakis volunteer. “But we may be better than that.”
No visits here are expected from the Massachusetts governor, who is stumping in Illinois, but both Jackson and Gore, who were also in Illinois yesterday, are scheduled to make appearances in this state today. And although Gephardt pulled his ad money out to help him make an all-or-nothing stand in Michigan, which votes March 26, he toured South Carolina both Wednesday and yesterday before heading for Chicago.
It’s hard to get a complete picture of the state of the 1984 and 1988 campaigns without a closer examination. But what these articles make clear is that unlike this year South Carolina was only lightly or moderately contested by the frontrunning candidates. And certainly in 1984 and to a large degree in 1988, the nomination contest was already decided, which contributed significantly to Jackson’s wins. What’s more, caucuses are much easier to win with legwork and organization than primaries if your competitors are not making a big effort in the state.
None of this is to diminish Jackson’s wins. 1984 was almost a quarter of a century ago. And at the end of the day he did win there twice. But in addition to whatever else he was trying to convey, Bill Clinton’s statement about Jackson’s victories was, while accurate, highly misleading on something like three or four different counts.
In case you missed it, here’s the video of the comments …
Marc Ambinder says Gov. Sebelius (D-KS) to is set to endorse Obama. We’re trying to confirm.
Though the sourcing is pretty vague, Shailagh Murray in the Post’s Trail blog suggests that Bill Clinton’s comparison of Jesse Jackson to Obama may have finally tipped the balance toward Ted Kennedy’s endorsing Obama.
Not sure what I think of that. It’s certainly possible this was coordinated in some way with Caroline Kennedy’s endorsement in the Times.
Asked about Clinton’s statement this morning on ABC, Obama basically passed on an opportunity to criticize Bill’s words or his meaning. He took a subtle jab at Clinton but basically didn’t want to engage.
I’ll give Obama credit for wanting to remain above this ugly fray. But I think his response (video of which you can see here) reflected a correct perception that Bill damaged himself badly with this comment and to some degree also his wife’s candidacy. And there’s simply nothing to be gained by getting into it with him. Bill’s doing plenty on his own to hurt himself.
Late Update: The Politico has a more detailed story on Kennedy’s move to Obama — doesn’t mention the Jesse Jackson remarks but does include an alleged last-minute phone call from Bill trying to talk him out of it.
From today’s lead story in the Washington Post:
For years, President Bush and his advisers expressed frustration that the White House received little credit for the nation’s strong economic performance because of public discontent about the Iraq war. Today, the president is getting little credit for improved security in Iraq, as the public increasingly focuses on a struggling U.S. economy.
That is the problem Bush faces as he prepares to deliver his seventh and probably final State of the Union address tonight. â¦
That’s a strange hedging, no?
(Thanks to TPM Reader JL for the catch.)
Late Update: I knew this would get political junkies’ juices flowing. Lots of readers are noting that the Constitution doesn’t limit the State of the Union to an annual occurrence, but merely “from time to time.”
Here’s the skinny:
Finally, President George W. Bush is set to deliver his next State of the Union Address on January 28, 2008. It is widely believed that this will be his last address before leaving office on January 20, 2009, but assuming this is incorrect. Bush has the right to deliver either a written or oral State of the Union in the days immediately before leaving office in 2009. Presidents Truman, Eisenhower, Johnson, Ford, and Carter chose to do this. Presidents Reagan, Bush, and Clinton, chose not to.
So there you have it.