(theGrio) The recent rash of black church burnings have many African-Americans wondering if this marks a resurgence of the nation’s original terrorists — white supremacists.
Following the June 17 massacre at the Emanuel AME Church in Charleston, S.C. — in which a white supremacist and Confederate sympathizer gunned down nine black congregants attending a Bible study meeting — eight predominantly black churches have burned, including seven in the South.
The latest fire was at Mount Zion AME Church in Greeleyville, which is about 60 miles northwest of Charleston. Although authorities say the church fire does not appear to have been intentionally set, the church was burned to the ground by the Ku Klux Klan 20 years ago.
Showing posts with label Bill Clinton. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Bill Clinton. Show all posts
July 3, 2015
May 11, 2015
Sorry Bill Clinton: The effects of your drug, prison policies need more than a ‘my bad’
(theGrio) They always say better late than never.
But in the case of Bill Clinton’s apology for the war on drugs and mass incarceration, is it too much, too late?
President Bill Clinton admitted what few politicians ever do. He said he was wrong. He conceded that the policies of his administration played a role in today’s mass incarceration of America.
As CNN reported, the former president admitted that he and his administration touted the “three strikes” provision of his 1994 omnibus crime bill, while also pointing the finger at Republicans. The legislation provided for mandatory life sentences for people convicted of a violent felony after at least two prior convictions, including drug-related offenses.
But in the case of Bill Clinton’s apology for the war on drugs and mass incarceration, is it too much, too late?
President Bill Clinton admitted what few politicians ever do. He said he was wrong. He conceded that the policies of his administration played a role in today’s mass incarceration of America.
As CNN reported, the former president admitted that he and his administration touted the “three strikes” provision of his 1994 omnibus crime bill, while also pointing the finger at Republicans. The legislation provided for mandatory life sentences for people convicted of a violent felony after at least two prior convictions, including drug-related offenses.
May 5, 2011
What Will It Take to Bring Obama Home? Making Him Realize There's No Other Choice
The following is part of the ongoing "Moving Left" series in BlackCommentator.com:
When it comes to the 2008 election of Barack Obama, the mistake people made was mistaking voting for activism. I believe that before we have any discussion on whether and how we can bring Obama home to progressive values, we must first come to terms with this reality.
It's not as if you can blame them. After eight years of a disaster that was the Bush administration, voters wanted and needed a major change in the direction of the country. We needed to wipe the slate clean and set a new tone for America. A new man for the times came on the scene. He was a person of color, clean and articulate, and with lofty rhetoric. And he provided hurting, hungry people with hope and promises of change. In fact, he was the embodiment of change.
Now, in 2011, things are a little different. Main Street is hurting, and unemployment is high and seemingly intractable. Meanwhile, as poor and working people struggle and fail to keep their necks above water, Wall Street and the corporate elites never had it so good. Profits are at a record high, and the gap between the richest of Americans and the rest of us is higher than at any time since the first Great Depression.
In the midst of this, the current administration has lacked the backbone, the heart and the intestinal fortitude to fight for ordinary folks. There have been some successes for progressives over the past few years, to be sure, but sprinkled among a larger host of disappointments and missed opportunities. The President made no attempts at a public option or single payer health insurance system, opting instead for a watered-down compromise plan that has proven itself as a giveaway to corporate interests. He extended the Bush tax cuts for the wealthiest people in this nation, and embraces budget cuts that support the fraudulent Republican narrative of austerity and trickle-down economics. The Bush military policies continue, as does the practice of rendition and detaining terror suspects at Guantanamo. And when the President goes to the bargaining table to negotiate with the Republicans, he gives away the store right away and asks for nothing in return. Democrats, progressives and other Obama supporters are shaking their heads in disbelief. Where is the fighting spirit, the will to work hard for our values?
Part of the problem is that Obama took the Goldman Sachs money in the presidential campaign, and has to play their tune. He stacked his inner circle with Wall Street water carriers and Clinton-era neoliberals with a deregulation fetish. These are the people who helped create the country's economic mess, in which the plenty greedy were allowed to plunder America's resources by gambling it all away at the casino.
The other part of the problem is Obama's quixotic journey to the political center. There is nothing in the middle of the road but yellow lines and road kill, and you'd better believe it. Although his campaign rhetoric was progressive, this president chooses to govern from the middle. That decision in itself is questionable for a number of fundamental reasons:
If the disgruntled Obama supporters thought they would get everything they wanted from this White House - without lifting a finger other than to cast their ballot in the voting booth - they were sorely mistaken. Elections are important, but are no substitute for the hard work of building movements, coalitions and institutions. At the same time, diehard Obama supporters and apologists who say he is just one man and cannot do it alone must realize that he is not doing it alone. He has an administration filled with intelligent, capable individuals. Yet, Democrats have not put enough pressure on Obama, which is why we are here today. But Democratic leaders--including progressive lawmakers and members of the Congressional Black Caucus-- and groups such as MoveOn.org and the Progressive Change Campaign Committee(PCCC) are pushing back, challenging the President to reject the Republican budget agenda, and not to cut programs for low income people.
President Franklin D. Roosevelt asked civil rights leader A. Phillip Randolph to "go out and make me do it," that is, make him use his power and the bully pulpit to right the wrongs and do the things they both agreed should be addressed. That is precisely what today's progressives must do with Obama. They must build the infrastructure of an independent movement that supports the President when he deserves it, and pressures him out of love, like a wayward family member, when necessary. Most of all, this movement must look toward the future, with the goal of surviving beyond an Obama administration or any other presidency.
Progressives must also craft a media narrative that places their ideals squarely in the political center, with the President having no choice but to embrace them. Justice for union workers, a living wage and benefits, a clean environment, social safety net and fighting against wealth inequality are mainstream policies. Triangulation is both unnecessary and counterproductive for a president who already enjoys support among moderates, who have fled the GOP in droves. The once mainstream Republican Party is now dominated by conspiracy theorists, crackpot Birthers in the mold of Donald Trump, self-righteous religious zealots and morality police, and Neo-Confederates. They want to turn extremism into the mainstream, and make ignorant the new smart. It is hard to imagine finding common ground with a party whose core constituencies include hate groups.
Further, the base must remind President Obama that the Republican goal is to run the economy into the ground -- and his presidency with it -- all for political gain. Therefore, he has no choice but to come home. And progressives should make it clear that if he wants a second term, he most certainly must come home in order for his supporters to come out next Election Day. That is not to say the Obama voters will flock to a viable challenger from within or outside the Democratic Party. Rather, many of them, demoralized and lacking in enthusiasm, simply will stay home and, by default, bestow victory upon the Republicans. That's what happened in the 2010 midterms, and the rest is history.
When it comes to the 2008 election of Barack Obama, the mistake people made was mistaking voting for activism. I believe that before we have any discussion on whether and how we can bring Obama home to progressive values, we must first come to terms with this reality.
It's not as if you can blame them. After eight years of a disaster that was the Bush administration, voters wanted and needed a major change in the direction of the country. We needed to wipe the slate clean and set a new tone for America. A new man for the times came on the scene. He was a person of color, clean and articulate, and with lofty rhetoric. And he provided hurting, hungry people with hope and promises of change. In fact, he was the embodiment of change.
Now, in 2011, things are a little different. Main Street is hurting, and unemployment is high and seemingly intractable. Meanwhile, as poor and working people struggle and fail to keep their necks above water, Wall Street and the corporate elites never had it so good. Profits are at a record high, and the gap between the richest of Americans and the rest of us is higher than at any time since the first Great Depression.
In the midst of this, the current administration has lacked the backbone, the heart and the intestinal fortitude to fight for ordinary folks. There have been some successes for progressives over the past few years, to be sure, but sprinkled among a larger host of disappointments and missed opportunities. The President made no attempts at a public option or single payer health insurance system, opting instead for a watered-down compromise plan that has proven itself as a giveaway to corporate interests. He extended the Bush tax cuts for the wealthiest people in this nation, and embraces budget cuts that support the fraudulent Republican narrative of austerity and trickle-down economics. The Bush military policies continue, as does the practice of rendition and detaining terror suspects at Guantanamo. And when the President goes to the bargaining table to negotiate with the Republicans, he gives away the store right away and asks for nothing in return. Democrats, progressives and other Obama supporters are shaking their heads in disbelief. Where is the fighting spirit, the will to work hard for our values?
Part of the problem is that Obama took the Goldman Sachs money in the presidential campaign, and has to play their tune. He stacked his inner circle with Wall Street water carriers and Clinton-era neoliberals with a deregulation fetish. These are the people who helped create the country's economic mess, in which the plenty greedy were allowed to plunder America's resources by gambling it all away at the casino.
The other part of the problem is Obama's quixotic journey to the political center. There is nothing in the middle of the road but yellow lines and road kill, and you'd better believe it. Although his campaign rhetoric was progressive, this president chooses to govern from the middle. That decision in itself is questionable for a number of fundamental reasons:
- First, the people who elected Barack Obama did not want a centrist who stands for nothing, sees how the wind is blowing and splits the difference. They wanted bold, decisive leadership, not a referee-in-chief.
- Second, such a strategy hopes to garner support from undecided independent voters who want Democrats and Republicans to play nice together, while ignoring the base. Sometimes, compromise is not a prudent step, particularly if your opponent has an unacceptable point of view. These voters live solely in the minds of inside-the-Beltway prognosticators and pundits.
- Third, governing from the center is a tough proposition when you fail to define what the center actually is. Ultra-rightwing Christian fundamentalism is driving the center in its traditional sense rightward. So, if your desire is to be Republican-light, be forewarned that when a fake Republican runs against a real Republican, the Republican always wins.
- Fourth, President Clinton was able to get away with triangulation, but that was Clinton's style. Plus, Bill had the benefit of a booming economy. So, although the base was angry when he sided with the Republicans to end welfare as we know it, he remained popular. But there is a sense today that voters are done with the foolishness. And the protests in Wisconsin and elsewhere point to a pushback against a conservative onslaught that would dismantle the New Deal-Great Society legacy.
If the disgruntled Obama supporters thought they would get everything they wanted from this White House - without lifting a finger other than to cast their ballot in the voting booth - they were sorely mistaken. Elections are important, but are no substitute for the hard work of building movements, coalitions and institutions. At the same time, diehard Obama supporters and apologists who say he is just one man and cannot do it alone must realize that he is not doing it alone. He has an administration filled with intelligent, capable individuals. Yet, Democrats have not put enough pressure on Obama, which is why we are here today. But Democratic leaders--including progressive lawmakers and members of the Congressional Black Caucus-- and groups such as MoveOn.org and the Progressive Change Campaign Committee(PCCC) are pushing back, challenging the President to reject the Republican budget agenda, and not to cut programs for low income people.
President Franklin D. Roosevelt asked civil rights leader A. Phillip Randolph to "go out and make me do it," that is, make him use his power and the bully pulpit to right the wrongs and do the things they both agreed should be addressed. That is precisely what today's progressives must do with Obama. They must build the infrastructure of an independent movement that supports the President when he deserves it, and pressures him out of love, like a wayward family member, when necessary. Most of all, this movement must look toward the future, with the goal of surviving beyond an Obama administration or any other presidency.
Progressives must also craft a media narrative that places their ideals squarely in the political center, with the President having no choice but to embrace them. Justice for union workers, a living wage and benefits, a clean environment, social safety net and fighting against wealth inequality are mainstream policies. Triangulation is both unnecessary and counterproductive for a president who already enjoys support among moderates, who have fled the GOP in droves. The once mainstream Republican Party is now dominated by conspiracy theorists, crackpot Birthers in the mold of Donald Trump, self-righteous religious zealots and morality police, and Neo-Confederates. They want to turn extremism into the mainstream, and make ignorant the new smart. It is hard to imagine finding common ground with a party whose core constituencies include hate groups.
Further, the base must remind President Obama that the Republican goal is to run the economy into the ground -- and his presidency with it -- all for political gain. Therefore, he has no choice but to come home. And progressives should make it clear that if he wants a second term, he most certainly must come home in order for his supporters to come out next Election Day. That is not to say the Obama voters will flock to a viable challenger from within or outside the Democratic Party. Rather, many of them, demoralized and lacking in enthusiasm, simply will stay home and, by default, bestow victory upon the Republicans. That's what happened in the 2010 midterms, and the rest is history.
May 29, 2008
Assassination Talk Shows Hillary’s True Colors
By David A. Love
BlackCommentator.com Cover Story
May 29, 2008
When Hillary Clinton invoked the 1968 assassination of Robert F. Kennedy as a justification for staying in the 2008 Democratic presidential race, she revealed how desperate she has become.
“My husband did not wrap up the nomination in 1992 until he won the California primary somewhere in the middle of June, right? We all remember Bobby Kennedy was assassinated in June in California. I don't understand it,” she said in an interview with the editorial board of the Argus Leader in Sioux Falls, S.D. Although some would chalk up her comment to fatigue or a lack of sleep, Clinton had similarly invoked the slain senator several times in recent months.
Talking assassination is serious business. Throughout the world and throughout history, the assassin’s bullet has made martyrs of positive change agents. The bullet has stopped leaders of democratic movements, and often those movements themselves, in their tracks. The names Gandhi, Biko, Lumumba, Allende, Rabin and Sadat are just several that come to mind.
And in the United States, a number of truth tellers and change agents have been assassinated, figures such as Martin Luther King, Malcolm X, Fred Hampton, and Medgar Evers. The FBI under J. Edgar Hoover had a policy of preventing the rise of a “Black messiah,” a matter of public record rather than urban legend or some wild-eyed conspiracy theory. Lovers of freedom are aware of the damage done to this nation because these individuals are no longer among us, taken from us before their time, before their work was completed, through violence and hatred.
To be a high-profile, charismatic leader of color in America is to find oneself under the gun, in a figurative and a literal sense. Sen. Obama and his family have received death threats, causing him to receive Secret Service protection earlier than any presidential candidate. Meanwhile Obama’s foot soldiers have experienced the full brunt of racial epithets, defamation, bomb threats and vandalism throughout the inhospitable underbelly of this nation. For Clinton to make light of this American reality - and to contemplate the assassination of her Democratic rival, an African American, as a political tactic - is to demonstrate a level of instability, insensitivity and cold-heartedness which belies, even betrays, her qualifications for the office which she seeks.
For the Clintons, it has been a long journey to the bottom of the barrel. It all started with Clinton’s “kitchen-sink” strategy to “mess up” her rival, Sen. Barack Obama, and render him unelectable.
The Clinton camp played the race card in a manner that would have made any Jim Crow politician blush. From the start, President Clinton did his part to stoke the fires of racial division in the South Carolina primary by comparing Obama to Jesse Jackson. At the same time, Sen. Clinton downplayed Martin Luther King’s role in the passage of civil rights legislation. This led to the revocation of the Clintons’ Black pass, and the exodus of Black voters to Obama. In an attempt to woo White voters, Sen. Clinton further disrespected African American voters by denouncing and scape-goating Rev. Jeremiah Wright, Obama’s pastor. Meanwhile, as BlackCommentator.com reported in its April 20, 2008 special investigative report, Senator Hillary Clinton Must Explain the Praising of a Group of KKK Supporters, in the 1990s President Bill Clinton expressed his support for the United Daughters of the Confederacy, a White supremacist organization that Hillary Clinton has yet to denounce. And Sen. Clinton won West Virginia and Kentucky by exploiting racism and appealing to what she referred to as “working, hard-working Americans, white Americans.”
But none of this could stop Obama. The Clinton camp tried to change the measure of success in the Democratic primaries, and manufactured all sorts of metrics, aside from the metric that really counts, the number of delegates, to define victory. Counting the votes in Michigan and Florida, states that were penalized by the Democrats for breaking party rules and holding early primaries, became a cause célèbre and civil rights issue for Clinton. This, despite her promise not to campaign in those states, a promise made when she was the frontrunner and thought she would win the nomination in February 2008.
It is not surprising to many observers that when all else failed, and there was no other way to catch up with Obama in the delegate count, Clinton’s strategy was to wait it out, hoping that something bad would happen to Obama to render him ineligible and otherwise unavailable for consideration for the presidency. Apparently, hoping for the demise of her opponent was part of the Clintonian calculus.
And Clinton’s latest assassination comments further reveal the contradictions regarding her candidacy. She cannot have it both ways. Hillary Clinton cannot claim to be a feminist whose candidacy has fallen victim to misogyny, yet engage in raw, unabashed appeals to white-skin solidarity, and endorse military aggression against innocent women and children in Iraq and Iran. Red meat, testosterone and hubris dressed in a pants suit do not equate to feminism.
Touting her civil rights record while waiting for her Black opponent to be slain, Clinton does nothing but debase the public discourse and show her true colors. It suggests an unhealthy desire for power at all costs, and at the very least, a sore loser with sour grapes over a poorly-run campaign.
Most of all, it suggests that Clinton has a lot on her mind these days, and no good can come out of what she has been thinking.
April 21, 2008
Senator Hillary Clinton Must Explain The Praising of a Group of KKK Supporters
A BlackCommentator.com Investigative Report
By David A. Love, BlackCommentator.com Editorial Board
and Peter Gamble, BlackCommentator.com Publisher
April 20, 2008
Note: In a year of political absurdities, where one candidate--Senator Obama--is being held accountable for his friends and acquaintances and everything that they have said and done during their life times, we have stumbled across a problem. Had Senator Clinton not been as self-righteous in her attacks on Senator Obama concerning his associates, including Rev. Jeremiah Wright and Chicago activist Bill Ayers, the following would probably be a footnote and blemish--albeit significant--on the Presidency of one William Jefferson Clinton. Yet, insofar as Senator Clinton has decided to hold her opponent responsible for the words and actions of others, we pose this question: should Senator Clinton be careful where she throws bricks? Now Senator Hillary Clinton (D, NY) has some explaining to do.
BlackCommentator.com has learned that Bill Clinton, while president, repeatedly praised the United Daughters of the Confederacy (UDC). This is an organization that many, including some whites and a former U.S. senator from Illinois, have called racist.
According to the Southern Poverty Law Center, which tracks hate groups, the UDC is a neo-Confederate organization which is affiliated with such white supremacist groups as the Council of Conservative Citizens and the League of the South. Formed in 1894, the UDC limits its membership to women who are related to Confederate veterans of the “War Between the States.”
In 2000, the Southern Poverty Law Center wrote that "[a]lthough the UDC promotes an image of genteel Southern ladies…its publications” tell a different story, adding that recently the “UDC’s president, Mrs. William Wells, shared the podium with…white supremacist lawyer Kirk Lyons.”
In a 1989 UDC Magazine article, Walter W. Lee argued that “purchasers of the slaves” were actually victims of slavery, while “the worst suffering group among those engaged in the trade” were “the crews of slave ships.” Lee also made light of the horrific and deadly Middle Passage, claiming that "the sixteen inches of deck space allotted each slave is not all that much smaller that (sic) the eighteen inches that the Royal Navy allowed for each sailor's hammock and the slaves rapidly had more room due to the much higher death rate."
In her quest for the presidency, the U.S. Senator from New York has presented herself as a qualified expert on civil rights and a participant in the civil rights movement.
Senator Clinton has also put forth her belief that all candidates for the office should be thoroughly scrutinized, that no one should be immune, and all of the presidential candidates should be required to justify their stance on the issues before the voters and explain any contradictions that might arise.
Senator Clinton frequently speaks of her eight years experience “in the White House”. During that time Bill Clinton lavished praise on the United Daughters of the Confederacy. BlackCommentator.com has seen the following documents and presents copies of them here.
June 21, 1994 Letter from President Bill Clinton to the United Daughters of the Confederacy printed in the United Daughters of the Confederacy Magazine, September 1994, Vol. 57 No. 8, page 9. This was a special centennial anniversary edition of the magazine and has an outer cover and a standard magazine cover.
In the letter to the UDC President Clinton wrote:
The White House
Washington
June 21, 1994
I am delighted to honor the United Daughters of the Confederacy as you celebrate your 100th anniversary.
One of the most rewarding of human experiences is the coming together of people to share common experiences and interests. For 100 years, the United Daughters of the Confederacy has maintained and built upon the wonderful legacy of your founders. The strength of your organization today is a testament of the vision of your founders and to your commitment to your shared goals.
I congratulate you on your achievement, and I extend best wishes for many years of continuing success.
Bill Clinton
(Note: these are relatively large scanned images and may take a moment to load depending on your connection speed – please be patient)
Click on any of the links below to view the images.
June 21_1994 President Clinton UDC Praise Letter
A letter of September, 1994 from Bill Clinton with the same wording as the one above to the United Daughters of the Confederacy was printed on the inside of the front cover of the February 1995 issue of United Daughters of the Confederacy Magazine. This letter praised the Georgia Division of the UDC.
Sept 8 1994 President Clinton UDC Praise Letter
A letter of August 9, 1995 from Bill Clinton to the United Daughters of the Confederacy was printed on the inside of the front cover of the Sept. 1995 issue of United Daughters of the Confederacy Magazine. This letter read as follows:
Greetings to everyone gathered in our nation's capital for the 1995 National Convention of the United Daughters of the Confederacy. Congratulations on beginning of the second century of your organization -- your long history is a tribute to your dedication to and respect for the ideals of your founders.This week marks a special time for the members of your organization to share memories, traditions, and goals. I hope that your visit to Washington is an enjoyable one and that you will take advantage of its unique beauty and many historical sites. Best wishes to all for an enjoyable convention. Bill Clinton
Aug 9 1995 President Clinton UDC Praise Letter
Lest anyone think this organization is nothing more than a group of women in fancy dress who gather for tea and cookies the facts show otherwise.
Former Illinois senator Carol Moseley Braun condemned the UDC on the floor of the Senate in 1993. Adam Clymer in the July 23, 1993, New York Times wrote:
The Senate’s only black member, Carol Moseley Braun, made the chamber listen today as freshmen seldom do. Her oratory of impassioned tears and shouts, stopped Jesse Helms in his tracks as he defended the Confederate flag.
Senator Helms, the 20-year North Carolina Republican, had sought -- and seemed to be finding -- a roundabout way to preserve the design patent held by United Daughters of the Confederacy on a symbol that includes the flag.
He proposed language to that effect as an amendment to the national service bill, which would provide educational grants in return for various forms of service. With many senators unaware of what they were voting on, he won a test vote, 52 to 48.
Then Senator Moseley Braun, a freshman from Illinois, took the floor in outrage at the defense of a symbol of slavery. She told the Senate:
"On this issue there can be no consensus. It is an outrage. It is an insult.
"It is absolutely unacceptable to me and to millions of Americans, black or white, that we would put the imprimatur of the United States Senate on a symbol of this kind of idea."
Less than one year after this event, Bill Clinton wrote his first letter of praise to the UDC.
As recently as Nov. 2007, the UDC Magazine printed an article titled, “Confederate Classics,” as part of a regular column, “Confederate Notes,” by Retta D. Tindal which made the following reading recommendations:
“Some books are classics that never go out of style. As we approach the gift-giving season, there are four books that I treasure and use over and over, whether for research or reference or just to refresh my memory of the special heritage I have.”
Tindall recommended the white supremacist racist text, “Southern By the Grace of God,” by Michael Andrew Grissom, a Ku Klux Klan praising book, not just the Klan of Reconstruction but the Klan of the 1920s, which in turn recommends “The Clansman” by Thomas Dixon, which later was made into the notorious movie “Birth of a Nation”.
UDC Magazine Column of Nov 2007
The United Daughters of the Confederacy have consistently defended the Ku Klux Klan. For example a postcard showing a Grand Cyclops of the KKK could at least at one time be found in the UDC Chapter Room at Florence, Alabama.
Grand Cyclops of the KKK Postcard
According to Time Magazine, Bill Clinton sent a wreath to the Confederate Monument in Arlington Cemetery while president each year.
If Senator Hillary Clinton is going to be viewed as ready on "day one" partially because of her eight years at 16-hundred Pennsylvania Avenue it would be reasonable to find out if elected President will she continue the tradition of support and praise of the United Daughters of the Confederacy.
March 13, 2008
The Clinton Monster, Unleashed
By David A. Love
Published by The Black Commentator
March 13, 2008
In desperation, some people will say and do anything to get a vote.
Under the military principle of scorched earth, an advancing army will proceed to destroy anything of use to its enemy, including infrastructure, land and natural resources, food supply, transportation, what have you.
Observing Hillary Clinton and her conduct in the presidential race against Barack Obama, I cannot help but make comparisons with a scorched earth strategy.
In a prior commentary, “Clintons, Your Black Pass Is Hereby Revoked,” I decried the use of the race card by Hillary and Bill Clinton in
As Senator
And she will throw Obama under the bus, to be sure. But so, too, will she sacrifice the progressive wing of the Democratic Party, the poor, labor, people of color, the folks she and her husband eschewed while in the White House, and as leaders of the conservative, corporatist Democratic Leadership Council. Evidence of the
- There was the talk from the
- There was the photo of him dressed in traditional Kenyan clothing during his visit to Africa, allegedly leaked by a
- At the time of the
- Senator Clinton has heaped praise on Senator John McCain, the Republican nominee, and touted his qualifications for president, while denigrating Obama, the probable Democratic nominee. Stating that she and McCain are qualified and have the experience to be president, but Obama is not, suggests either that
A cornerstone of the Clintonian narrative is that she possesses the requisite experience, that she will be ready for the job on “day one,” ready for the emergency phone call at 3 A.M. (as if a president does not rely on an army of advisors – and who wears a business suit to bed?). On the one hand, she provides scant evidence of the vast experience she claims to possess, particularly in the area of foreign policy. On the other hand, to be sure,
- Sen. Clinton endorsed the disastrous, deadly and costly
- With a lifetime of commitment to serving corporations, she is the leading recipient of lobbyist money of any presidential candidate.
- Poor when they came to the White House in 1993, the Clintons have amassed great wealth through public service and associations with sketchy individuals. Sen. Clinton lent her campaign $5 million of her own money. They are reluctant to disclose their tax returns, or reveal the list of contributors to the Clinton Presidential Library.
- As first lady,
- With their approval of the welfare reform bill in 1996, under the GOP Contract With America, the
There is a consensus that, barring some unlikely and unforeseeable circumstances,
The party elders may try to convince themselves that when this happens, all of the Democratic constituents will come together and rally behind the nominee, Hillary Clinton. Guess again. Obama - who has drawn millions of new people into the process, including independents, Democrats, Republicans and young people - is the stronger candidate against McCain in the general election. These Obama supporters, who, if organized, could form the basis of a new grassroots multiracial movement in this nation, will not roll over for the establishment this time around. Nor will the specter of a new McBush administration scare them into voting for the evil of two lessers.
And African Americans - who have rejected the
Deprived of its core, this would signal the death of the Democratic Party, as people finally realize that the two major parties, siding with the establishment and entrenched corporate power, represent a difference without a distinction.
Ultimately, under this scenario,
The vetted, tested and entrenched Clinton not only mocks Obama’s positive message of change and hope, of people working together to get things done, of divesting ourselves of the old ways and doing things differently. She also stands diametrically opposed to what Obama represents in this campaign, and disregards and dismisses his supporters, and the promise they represent.
The
Progressives were fooled once by the
January 17, 2008
Clintons, Your Black Pass is Hereby Revoked
By David A. Love
Published By Black Commentator
January 17, 2008
Hillary and Bill Clinton have a lot of explaining to do. In her quest for the presidency, the U.S. Senator from New York and her husband — known by some as “the first Black president” — have used the race card against rival presidential candidate, Senator Barack Obama (D, Ill.). Although Obama was supposedly the intended target, in the end, all African Americans were attacked. The Clintons have attacked blackness as a disqualifying attribute for the office of president, and have managed to insult Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. and the civil rights movement in the process.
It should be said at the outset that candidates for office should be thoroughly scrutinized. No one should be immune, and all of the presidential candidates should be required to justify their stance on the issues before the voters and explain any contradictions that might arise.
But the contest should go to the best person, someone who will heal a nation broken by injustice, hatred, neglect, greed and corruption. When a candidate exploits the race of another candidate, and insults an entire community for political gain, she is taking that community for granted and does not deserve their support.
The record is replete with evidence of what is going on here. Senator Clinton’s surrogates have raised issues about Obama’s Muslim middle name Hussein, and the unelectability of a Black man. Hillary aides and supporters — including BET founder Bob Johnson, who has already done enough harm to the psyche of Black America as a purveyor of garbage media — have made references to Obama’s youthful drug use. Meanwhile, Hillary surrogate and New York state attorney general, Andrew Cuomo, stated that presidential candidates cannot “shuck and jive” during the primaries. President Clinton had to defend himself against angry Black voters who charged that he dismissed Obama’s presidential bid as "the biggest fairy tale I've ever seen."
But most importantly, Senator Clinton — perhaps believing she is a qualified expert on the civil rights movement — suggested that President Lyndon Johnson’s role overshadowed that of Dr. King in the passage of civil rights legislation. The Civil Rights and Voting Rights Acts were enacted as a result of agitation and pressure applied to power by a movement, many of whose members were imprisoned, discredited, maimed and murdered. Let us not forget the police dogs, the water hoses, the lynchings, and COINTELPRO. In her revision of history, Clinton would suggest that King and the movement were idle, passive dreamers, but it took the great father in the White House to do the heavy lifting, make the big decisions, and do the thinking required to get things done. The more she and her water carriers try to spin her misguided statement, the angrier Black people will become.
When viewed in totality, the comments from the Clinton camp speak to a pattern of racial insensitivity, disrespect for Black people, and a willingness to use the race card for political gain. Senator Clinton, an establishment Democrat, is employing the tactics associated with race-baiting, Swift-Boating, Southern-strategy Republicans. She and her handlers, faced with a bland product people were not buying, needed to conjure up a Black boogeyman, a Willie Horton, if you will. Perhaps the differences between the two parties are not as great as we were led to believe, after all.
And typical of the center-Right, DLC Democratic establishment, the Clinton campaign treats the African American community as the lover it embraces at night, yet refuses to acknowledge in the daytime. Meanwhile, Clinton attempts to buy off Black leaders and preachers and figures such as Magic Johnson, to the tune of $750 million, and shamelessly attempts to buy our votes in the process.
This is bigger than Obama. Obama, who is enjoying increased support in the Black community and whose candidacy is viewed as a source of hope for many, should not receive a free ride because he is of African descent. And he has not received one, given the split in the Black community over whom to support. To that extent, the Black electorate has displayed a political sophistication for which it is rarely given credit.
People of color, who have supported far more candidates from outside their community than have their White counterparts, know that Black faces in high places will not constitute progress without a positive agenda that benefits the people left behind. When Condoleezza Rice and Clarence Thomas climbed the ladder, they did not leave it out for the rest of us. They have meant nothing for Black progress. Obama has a unique opportunity to change the whole game in this nation if he listens to the people, dares to bring discomfort to the powerful, challenges institutional racism and fundamental inequality, and does not succumb to the corruption of the cesspool that is Washington.
Likewise, the senator from New York does not deserve a free ride due to her or her husband’s perceived record of helping Black folks. The first time around, they courted us with saxophone playing on the Arsenio Hall Show. When in office, through a game of bait and switch, they delivered disappointingly conservative policies, welfare reform, “don’t ask don’t tell,” and media consolidation that decimated Black and Brown-owned radio stations and newspapers. One wonders what they really did to deserve the considerable support they have enjoyed among progressives and in many corners of the Black community, support they enjoyed at least until they became desperately unhinged in this campaign.
And let us not forget then-Governor Bill Clinton’s use of the race card in the 1992 campaign. Bill repudiated Black activist Sister Souljah as a David Duke-type racist, a positioning to the Right which insulted the African American community, and allowed him to appeal to conservative Whites by showing he was a good ol’ boy. Then there was the 1992 execution of Ricky Ray Rector, a Black death row inmate in Arkansas, mentally ill, with an IQ of 70. Bill left the campaign trail to witness Rector’s execution, an expedient and opportunistic move to bolster his “tough on crime” image and help him claim the presidency.
Senator Clinton exploits the race card, to be sure, but avails herself of the gender card as well. One of the tougher and more testosterone-infused politicians on Capitol Hill when it comes to policies of military aggression, Hillary, it seems, becomes the fragile, defenseless damsel when it suits her political needs. She sheds a tear only for herself, when her political career is at stake. Senator Clinton touts her alleged record on human rights, the needs of children and the rights of women. But we wonder if she sheds any tears for the thousands of Iraqi women and children who died in a war she wholeheartedly endorsed, all to score political points, beef up her image and show that she is as cold-hearted and cold-blooded as the guys, as macho as any perverse, distorted caricature of a man.
Since when did a woman’s strength come from her willingness to exhibit the worst traits of conservative, warmongering men? There are countless anonymous women and men who live and have lived, whose strength has been judged by their commitment to building their communities, supporting their families, fighting injustice and leaving the world a better place than they found it. A person who will do or say anything to become president, including race bait, and aspires to the presidency for no other reason than a sense of entitlement and dynastic succession, is not a role model to follow.
And anyone can address a Black congregation with a phony Southern accent and clap offbeat to the choir.
Clintons, you became a little too comfortable for your own good. Your dirty tricks are out of pocket, and your Black pass is hereby revoked.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)