-
Website
http://www.jackandjillpolitics.com/ -
Original page
http://www.jackandjillpolitics.com/2008/04/cnn-does-disservice-to-black-bloggers-and-jjp-specifically-updated/ -
Subscribe
All Comments -
Community
-
-
Top Commenters
-
Popular Threads
This rocks!!
Did you send it in a letter to CNN?
To Soledad, Anderson, The Head of CNN News?
"It's in moments like these when I realize how revolutionary it is to be a part of this new medium. Just a few years ago, we would have to fume isolated from one another in our homes, ignorant of the existence of others like us."
You don't know how true this statement is!
Back in January, I was starving for people who had an interest in the election and other current events (I was alone in Atlanta without family and working with a lot of unconcerneds and misinformeds) and I needed news (more than mainstream) and other points of view so I did a few searches and found this blog and have been coming back every since (daily)and have found other blogs through this blog.
It's amazing to find people of like minds and different minds to analyze and vent with.
I look forward to your posts and the corresponding comments.
Please give CNN hell; I do everytime I catch em slippin!
They have absolutely no right to minimize or diminish compact the wide-range of views and positions that are represented on these blogs.
They've done this story already and previously interviewed Emanuel Cleaver regarding it. Are they trying to stir the issue up again only this time including the white delegates and what they should do? I'm not so sure they don't mean anything by it.
it is certainly stupid, or better say ignorant, to be for obama because he's black. some have had this attitude, even here, and it misses the point. obama is as much black as he is white. and his line is to move beyond the color of the skin. he has been quite credible in this effort.
however, those black poeple who demand their black representatives to stick with the black candidate do have a point after all the clinton lies and especially the race baiting. but this should not be a matter of color exclusively, even if it is so in the first instant: clinton is not the one to represent america, and this view should be shared by blacks and whites and everybody else alike.
now when you move from the level of personal attitudes to that of professional politicians, there you find even more idiocy. these guys are there to represent people. they should not be so naive to expect from the people always the most eleborate analises. they should simply take into consideration what their constituents say, and not simply call it pressure.
it IS pressure, but that's how democracy works. nobody puts a gun to their heads, they're simply told their not going to get the votes. now what could be wrong with this?
to feel offended about it plainly means these folks aren't democrats, double sense intended.
and even more stupid are the journalists, whose very public function it is to hold the politicians accountable. to question them and what they say. to tell them here, hey, you're supposed to represent those people who are criticising you. it's your job and don't complain.
but professionalism in journalism, that's an idea that has been long dead already. especially with cnn and the likes. it's down to showbiz. it's void of meaning.
this would be the end of democracy if it were not for those who simply do not give up and make their voices heard. and, yes, do demand from cnn to be what they pretend: journalists. not some grandstanding empty suits.
to make this point a little clearer: i'm a journalist myself. i'm pretty disgusted by what i just saw in the clip. and i'm not surprised.
so yes, do demand of your politicians to represent you, and even more demand of the press to inform you and to control the politicians. to hold them accountable every day.
these are your rights. fight for them, they're never a given.
Keep up the good work, JJP!
As a longtime fan of yours, I was disappointed when I watched your story last night regarding the pressure on black superdelegates to support Obama simply because he is Black.
First, while you did not intend it I am sure, that was demeaning. It over simplified a complicated issue. Remember this is the candidate that MSM and others wondered why Sen. Clinton had the black support earlier in the race. So he did not simply receive a blank check from black voters.
The passion by blacks - and other races as well - for Sen. Obama is driven by: the belief he is a candidate for change; support for his policies - as we understand them; and the Clinton camps racially tinted attacks.
Sometimes has there been overeaction to race in the conversation, certainly. But we did not start the journey down this difficult road and once that door is opened, it can be difficult to contain. Furthermore, once her camp began it galvanized supporters from the black community, many of whom were struggling to choose between the two.
Let me digress to also add how disappointed I am that CNN continues to replay the CLIPS from Rev. Wright's sermon. It is unfortunate that you choose to participate in demonizing this man.
In light of what you have seen, does it surprise you that blacks would rush to her defense - is it no different than women who feel Sen. Clinton has been victimized?
As an avid reader of Jack & Jill politics, and someone who signed the Color of Change petition, I was disappointed you referenced them but from what I have read on JJP, made no attempt to contact for a balanced perspective.
I respect the fact that has elected officials they are perhaps privy to more information that we are - but in light of the fact none of highlighted a reason that an Obama election would damage the country - I do believe that they should reflect the will of those they were elected to REPRESENT. Many of mentioned Sens. Kerry & Kennedy - that is a question for those gentlemen to answer based on the feedback from their states. What we have seen with black officials is an overwhelming discussion by blacks to their representatives. I think it is especially important for House of Rep. members, they represent a more defined group of people - not the state at large. Had your report included rep from the black blogging community - they could have more clearly and eloquently explained our position than I have here.
It is unfortunate that as Blacks become more engaged about the election process - they are mocked and treated as simpletons.
Finally, your report was inaccurate - I read a thread on DailyKos recently regarding an elected official in California that was close to announcing the fact she is switching her support to Obama because she wants to represent the will of her district. That is what the callers to her office were told by spokespersons. The diary went on to encourage others to call her to keep up the pressure and they discussed other representatives around the country that similar pressure should be applied to - to my knowledge, none of these representaives or those blogging on Daily Kos on this particular thread were black.
Because when you peel away the conversation you were trying to have - it is not simply because we are supporting a black man - as Oprah said, "Don't play me small!" it is the fact that people honestly believe the elected officials should REPRESENT their views, unless compelling reasons exist, which does not appear to be the case.
The Congressional Black Caucus wants to use this issue to not only discredit the Black Blogsphere, but also people doing the work to hold their behinds accountable to the constituencies that voted for them. It's not about supporting Obama - because of the Jeremiah Wright flap and Obama's handling of it, I can't say I'm supporting him, but Hillary Clinton is sure as hell not getting my vote.
The CBC is saying they don't want to be held accountable; yet we should continue to support them and give them free passes because they are Black members of Congress. The same concept they are now trying to fight because half of them support Hillary Clinton. That's some sick crap and they need to know that we're not backing down from them.
Now Color of Change has done good work and maybe pressuring Black superdelegates to throw their support to Obama in light of Hillary donning a hood and robe - good in purist theory; not so good for the overall purpose of electing and implementing a progressive government that is of the people, for the people and by the people. Maybe a different tactic needed to be used here; I don't know, and I don't want to be critical of their actions, because it's their right to engage in activism that will result in what's best for the communities they serve.
However, I do agree with them that the CBC is being arrogant in ignoring, if not at least, listening to the voices of the people they purport to represent, and for that, it should cost them, because the next issue won't be Barack Obama, but something like the Bankruptcy Bill, school vouchers, increasing funding to the military and the prison industry complext, which does nothing but incarcerate more of US. The CBC has already demonstrated an inherent willingness to take small amounts of money to sell out for personal gain and presumed fortune.
Sorry for the rant, but I feel the CBC has declared war on Black Bloggers because we've been calling them out on their dereliction of duty to us and they need to be remind who they work for.
They work for US, the taxpaying Americans who elected them. If they don't want to do what we ask, on most jobs, it's called "being fired". Now, if they want to get fired like their buddy Al Wynn, they can step right up into primary challenges, either this year or 2010. I'm sick of these attempts to silence us when silence IS NOT GOLDEN.
Meeks and Cleveland just wanted to be part of the Clinton gravy train when it looked like she was going to be the nominee; now they're just scared to cross them like Richardson did.
Plus there's still money to be made with the Clinton's even if Hillary loses.
Black bloggers are telling - warning - the super-delegates, that Hillary Clinton cannot and will not get that necessary Black turnout, because, in spite of what the CBC is doing, Black VOTERS no longer want Hillary Clinton to be president.
The CBC can say whatever it wants on CNN, but the media and the super-delegates know that the CBC members are only going to cast 40 votes among millions in November. If the narrative is that Blacks oppose Hillary Clinton, then we have achieved our objective, even if the reason for our opposition is misrepresented, as we almost always ARE misrepresented on television.
The CBC had better watch out in future elections. We Blacks understand that CBC members are in the minority in the US Congress and so they can't change the world all by themselves.
However, CBC super-delegates have a lot of power in the selection of the Democratic nominee. If they use this power in a way that most Blacks perceive as being contrary to our interests, this may well catalyze a movement against CBC members more than any other obscure vote they could have taken. And CNN won't be able to save their butts come election time. Black voters are NOT going to forget the super-delegates who support Hillary Clinton against Barack Obama.
The problem here is that while this is the opinion of many, it is NOT A FACT. The pressure being put on black superdelegates is based on race, and not issues.
If black, or white, superdelegates agree with you, they can feel justified in supporting Obama. But if they do not see it your way, they should be able to vote for Clinton.
Black Obama supporters here at JJP are making his candidacy ALL ABOUT RACE.
The wiki page, the support of Rev. Wright are the most obvious examples.
The way this is playing out, soon a vote against Obama will be labeled a vote for racism.
Frankly, if that happens, Obama is doomed. He may get the nomination but if this continues against McCain and the Republicans he will lose.
Voters have a right to question the judgment of his association of Wright. Voters are justified in rejecting him based on that association.
Juan Williams writes today in the Wall Stree Journal, "Obama's major speech on race last month was forced from him only after a political crisis erupted: It became widely known that he'd sat for 20 years in the pews of a church where Rev. Jeremiah Wright lashed out at white people. The minister cursed America as worthy of damnation, made lewd suggestions about the nature of President Clinton's relationship with black voters, and embraced the paranoid idea that the white government was spreading AIDS among black people.
Here is where the racial tension at the heart of Mr. Obama's campaign flared into view. He either shared these beliefs or, lacking good judgment, decided it politically expedient for an ambitious young black politician trying to prove his solidarity with all things black, to be associated with these rants. His judgment and leadership on the critical issue of race is in question.
While speaking to black people, King never condescended to offer Rev. Wright-style diatribes or conspiracy theories. He did not paint black people as victims. To the contrary, he spoke about black people as American patriots who believed in the democratic ideals of the country, in nonviolence and the Judeo-Christian ethic, even as they overcame slavery, discrimination and disadvantage. King challenged white America to do the same, to live up to their ideals and create racial unity. He challenged white Christians, asking them how they could treat their fellow black Christians as anything but brothers in Christ."
I personally choose to believe that most people are not racist.
I get the feeling that here at JJP, many believe that most people are racist.
This is the real tension at the heart of fight for the superdelegates. And if Obama wins the nomination, I am sure all his supporters here at JJP will eagerly continue to use race as the main issue against McCain.
Be careful not to "cry wolf" one too many times.
You don't visit here much, do you? Because if you did, you would know and understand that we at JJP do not engage or support Black politicos because they are Black. In fact, we have most of the CBC in our sights as targets for replacement, either with another Black candidate or a progressive one of any race that's going to best represent the interests of the people that elected them to office.
No more and no less. The only one superdelegate I can see that's trying to pressure the rest of the Caucus to get in line behind Obama is Jesse Jackson, Jr.
I disagree with the motive to vote for Obama because of his ethnicity; in fact, I am on RECORD against Obama because I believe, and I still believe, that his platform is full of platitudes and no substance. Having said that, the only reason I was defending him and giving him strong consideration is because HILLARY CLINTON MADE THIS CAMPAIGN ONE ABOUT RACE WHEN SHE PLAYED THE CARD IN SOUTH CAROLINA.
Period. THE END.
Voting for Obama because he's Black has never been the reason JJP got behind him - in fact, in most of the Black Blogsphere, Obama was viewed with suspicion because Whites were readily embracing him and we wanted to know what he promised them to get that kind of support because whites voting for Obama does not go anywhere towards evisceration of centuries of white guilt they might feel, if they feel any at all.
A candidate's race or gender SHOULD NEVER BE THE SOLE REASON TO GIVE THEM YOUR VOTE. Get that straight, if Hillary was talking the deal we wanted to hear, we'd be supporting her against Obama. It's not like it hasn't happened.
How many times has Al Sharpton ran for POTUS and Blacks got on board en masse to vote for him?
::crickets chirping::
I rest my case. 20 years ago we took Jesse seriously, and we didn't take Al as seriously because he already was getting beat up over the Tawana Brawley affair and crapped all over his credibility. More so when it became known that in recent campaigns, he was taking cheddar from Republican operatives who wanted him to throw monkey wrenches in the campaigns of Howard Dean, first, and then John Edwards and John Kerry.
You do yourself a disservice when you say JJP engages in race-baiting politics because we don't.
Cry wolf my behind! There are many who won't be silenced for fear of being deemed angry or sensitive to race-based treatment.
Dr. King did what he had to do for his time. I'm sure there were times when he wanted to scream out loud about the injustice and hatred that was shown to black americans. Don't be foolish enough to think he was never angry at America. He simply played the game to get done what needed to be done.
Some defend Wright because because he deserves the right to speak about the injustices. He and his church know the injustices because they are in the community helping people who suffer from them.
You don't have to feel guilty about what America has done to blacks and continues to do systemically, but you won't make me feel guilty about speaking out against it.
You like CNN have attempted to lump black voters into one group with one thinking pattern. WRONG!
Ruth said it best:
"It is unfortunate that as Blacks become more engaged about the election process -they are mocked and treated as simpletons."
It didn't work then and it won't work now.
I disagree with one thing! Anon 8:28 doesn't do him/herself a disserve b/c more than likely he/she knows the truth. The disservice is the idiots who will listen to the filth this character is spreading without verifying for themselves!!!
Cry wolf my behind!
LOL!
You may object to the comments based on the belief that Obama in NOT an inexperienced 'kid' and that his consistent opposition to the war is NOT a fairytale. These points can be argued without using race AT ALL. But that's not what happened here at JJP is it?
There are more posts and comments on this blog devoted to real and perceived incidents of race-baiting and racism against Obama than any other topic. Even more than on the candidate himself.
The post I was responding to is outraged because the media is refusing to acknowledge in their report that black superdelegates are being pressured to move from Clinton because of the 'nasty, divisive, race-baiting campaign tactics' of her campaign.
JJP maintains that blacks who support Clinton are 'are complicit in defining a roadmap that will be used to undermine future black candidates.'
This argument is based purely on race. No discussion of the issues, judgment, leadership. No persuasive argument to switch to Obama for any reason other than race.
No one here will even acknowledge that Wright's comments and Obama's association with him are legitimate areas of concern as it relates to Obama's judgment and beliefs. Most here agree with and defend Wright.
I stand by my assertion that JJP and commenters operate from the viewpoint that 'most people are racist.'
This viewpoint will ultimately doom Obama. Soon JJP will start a mccainandtheracistrethugsattackobama wiki.
Crying 'RACE!' indiscriminately, diminshes the true, serious incidents of racism. Crying "RACE!" to avoid criticism and stifle debate are counterproductive.
It has become all to tempting to see race. All too easy to assume that most people are racist.
This is going to be a long campaign. Many important differences exist between McCain and Obama. Voters deserve to see a constructive,substantive campaign based on the issues, leadership and judgment. I don't want the campaign to be all about race.
That Clinton Attacks Obama wikipedia blog was started because the Clintons put out a pattern that facilitates racial discrimination.
No one wanted to be crying "racism" without having evidence. There was a pattern of race-baiting being introduced and facilitated by the Clintons themselves; a pattern so blatant even white progressives like Keith Olbermann and even a wingbot like Chris Wallace over on Fox News, called out their own peers over it.
So, where does JJP engage in race-baiting politics when the Clintons themselves introduced the concept in the campaign and we decided to keep track of the so-called "coincidences", "Misspeaks" and "out of context" statements that were happening too frequently to be considered "coincidental".
That many "coincidences" leads to a pattern which usually adds up to either bigotry or discrimination.
My career is in EEO/Civil Rights/Diversity/Affirmative Action, sir/madam. The U. S. Government sent me to school and trained me how to identify and prove episodes of race, gender discrimination and bigotry by first learning how to identify a pattern of behavior.
Everything you cited as an example of what you believe JJP engaging in race politics merely reinforced the suspicion that the Clintons were trying to play on the fears and bigotry of America by trying to recreate Obama as the Scary Black Man in order to win this election and the nomination because they believe they're entitled to it.
You call it race baiting; we call it a pattern of bigotry and discrimination.
BTW, if you're a Hillary supporter, or worse, a McCain supporter, I wish you'd come forth and say so and stop arguing with us here. I continue to blow holes in your argument because I take your own words and demonstrate the pattern of bigotry the Clintons started and now are crying foul because the kitchen they cooked this crap up in got too hot.
"Crying 'RACE!' indiscriminately, diminshes the true, serious incidents of racism. Crying "RACE!" to avoid criticism and stifle debate are counterproductive."
Introducing race in the manner in which the Clintons and MSM have and even you in your pathetic attempt to counsel us here at JJP also stifles debate and is counterproductive.
But I'm sure you know that!
ColorOfChange was contacted by CNN on Thursday evening and we got back to them on Friday morning. By that time, it was too late. We then sent them a statement that they asked for.
Unfortunately, they did not read that statement, and viewers were left to think that ColorOfChange members were asking superdelegates to vote for Obama because he is Black.
I think you're hitting the point spot on: instead of allowing for a more complete version of events, Black superdelegates were allowed to frame the issue entirely, without any opposing viewpoint besides the cursory narration of the story. What makes this more problematic, is that CBC members continue to push a narrative that equates advocacy with threats and arm-twisting. It's irresponsible and disrespectful to the people who go out of their way to send CBC members their informed concerns about how they are acting as superdelegates.
Finally, here's our statement in full:
ColorOfChange.org uses the internet to empower our members to make government more responsive to the concerns of Black Americans and to bring about positive political and social change for everyone.
Our petition to pressure superdelegates is not about who wins the nomination; it's about who gets to decide - we think the people's voice should be decisive. Because we saw the possibility of Black elected officials using their votes as superdelegates to undermine the will of voters, we called on them to make clear they would not choose that course. The Congressional Black Caucus has long defended voting rights in Congress and our members insist that they maintain that commitment.
Along with 26,559 petition signatures, we have received thousands of comments from our members - they are critical, but fair and focused on a powerful message: 'do not undermine the choice of the voters who put you in office'.
Race baiting is the term for an act of using racially derisive language, actions or other forms of communication, to anger, intimidate or incite a person or groups of people, or to make those persons behave in ways that are inimical to their personal or group interests. This can also be accomplished by implying that there is an underlying race based motive in the actions of others towards the group baited, where none in fact exists.
Calling Obama a 'kid' and that his consistent opposition to the war is a 'fairytale' contains absolutely no racially divisive language. It may be disputible and innacurate information but it is not racial.
Many people who practice race baiting often believe in racism, or have an interest in making the group believe that racism is what motivates the actions of others.
Again, my assertion here is that 'most people here at JJP believe that most people are racist.'
I also maintain that this assertion, if widely held by Obama supporters, will harm his candidacy.
That is my argument. You have done nothing to address it. BTW I am an Obama supporter.
Additionally, you have done nothing but regurgitate your earlier posts and innuendo. We asked you several times to provides facts that this blog engages in race-baiting tactics. Even after Mervyn from Color of Change posted a clarification to the position of the organization, and which is consistent with the politics advocated here, you continue to insist that JJP is engaging in race-baiting.
Race-baiting, which has been pointed out to you at least three times on this thread, WAS STARTED BY THE CLINTONS.
You have the right to stand by your previous posts, but we also reserve the right to call BS, especially when the evidence has been presented to you.
If a judge ignored evidence to render a verdict contrary to proof, he'd be disbarred and thrown off the bench. Fortunately for you, all we can do is ignore your unfounded and illogical blasts into the blogsphere.
Do you believe that 'most people are racist?'
Other readers, do you hold this view?
Will the viewpoint that 'most people are racist' have an impact on Obama's nomination? Has it already? How will this viewpoint help Obama become President of the United States of America?
The issue of race has clearly divided Democrats. When Clinton loses the nomination, how will the viewpoint expressed on JJP, that 'Clinton supporters are racist' unite the party?
In the general election, when Obama's judgment is called into question through his association with Rev. Wright, will McCain supporters be assumed to be racist as well? Will other criticisms of Obama's positions or ideology be viewed as racist as well? Will this assumption help or harm Obama's chance to become President?
I contend that if 'most people are racist' is the dominant viewpoint of Obama supporters, he will not be elected President.
"No, the more serious issue that we've repeatedly been all over here at JJP is that black superdelegates who continue to support Clinton also support her nasty, divisive, race-baiting campaign tactics".
It's not just the fact that they still support her, and it's not just a matter of them being complicit through their silence about her tactics. When Clinton says words to the effect that it's not and shouldn't be about race, while at the same time having surrogates like Tubbs-Jones going on TV and proclaiming that Obama "can't run away from the issue of race", you know that they are fully-complicit, willing participants in this disgusting racist strategy, and are every bit as guilty as Clinton herself.
Listen, what these CBC members are doing is a far cry from the usual "black conservatives making a living by telling whites what they want to hear" kind of thing. These people have to answer to their black constituients, and their continued employment as federal legislators depends on those BLACK constituients.
It's alright, y'all...this is an OPPORTUNITY:).
I really appreciate JJP because I have a chance to read about issues I care about and share my thoughts with others who understand where I am coming from.
This too shall pass. This is a new era and people are no longer falling for the oki-doke. Sure it may take work to set the record straight, but the fact that CNN knows we are here also tells me we can't be ignored.
"Be careful not to "cry wolf" one too many times."
-Gee, Anonymous, would you say Hillary is as pure as the driven snow?
Hillary started the racial dog-whistling.
And speaking of "wolf", stop trying to sell wolf tickets here.
Nobody's buying.
As long as they are allowed to cry racism, the black establishment is allowed to flourish and suck the life out of our community. These people would love it if we never had a barack, a cory booker, or anyone else. It highlights their own shortcomings as politicians, and would awaken their constituents in such a way that they could be voted straight out of office.
What is the moral to be found in this story?
Enough of a difference that -- in weighing options -- you make a conscious decision not to use one. Your statement makes it clear you're not like some posters here who weren't aware they could choose an identity.
I'm with Christian. Own your opinions. Brand them with a handle of your choosing. But since you have chosen not to, may I ask why you have not?
He/She has not taken a name because the deliberate act of not taking a name is the cyberspace equivalent to klansmen wearing hoods. It's similar to a criminal wearing a mask..they are up to dastardly deeds an don't want to be known. It's also a psychological tactic intended to disorient and instill fear.
Nothing because they are all on-line identities.
No one in their right mind would use their real names or their real email address because they wouldn't want to receive hate mail from Obama supporters calling them handkerchief heads.
This has happened to me.
From now on, if I can post anonymously I will.
CNN does a disservice to black bloggers, JJP specifically!
I'm shocked!
This is CNN.
Remember when CNN used to be the most trusted name in news?
Now who trusts CNN?