I watched the debate from gavel to gavel. Barack was his usual erudite, contemplative, stand-up self. Hank was, surprisingly, kinder and gentler, and bearing more fangs--err--smiling a little more than usual.
Both were a bit more detailed in their health care plans, offering a little more "wonk" in their policy. And both seemed to go out of their way to be more cordial, while endeavoring to display a unified front in defeating the Republican nominee in November.
The crowd--seemingly a smattering of Black celebs and poseur White women wearing scarves and I'm-smarter-than-you glasses. You know; the Hollywood set. Certainly a crowd that catered more to Hank than to Barack.
Barack seemed to be better prepared at highlighting the policy differences between the two; at the same time, it seemed that Hank received a bit more talk time.
The best part of the night was when the crowd booed Wolf Blitzer for his smugness and arrogance in posing a question (but don't expect to read that anywhere on CNN).
All in all, the debates were more of a conversation. There weren't any winners, and probably no new converts. Due credit, though, to Barack for not "reinventing" himself for the night.
G.D.
· 1 year ago
Wow, was that mushy.
I half-expected them to start setting each other up for punchlines.
I appreciated the wonkishness, this go 'round. I think, though, that it highlights the problems that both candidates are having: the nuts and bolts of their health care plans are similar enough (roll back the Bush tax cuts for the highest income earners to pay for it) that it again relegated this decision for the undecided to a matter of preference for one candidate's style.
i'm curious, tho: y'all are pretty hardcore in the Obama camp. Are you absolutely ruling out voting for Clinton? We asked this question on PostBourgie, but what if Obama is her running mate (that question did come up last night)? Does that alignment miss the point entirely?
D.
· 1 year ago
I got my popcorn ready for an all-out slugfest....and got a love in.
I got a sneaking suspicion that between Edwards, Obama, and Clinton-two of them are going to end up on the ticket, and the other is going to play a significant role in the administration (Obama as a SC justice if a vacancy opens up, Edwards as a cabinet secretary, Clinton as...still thinking).
I'm convinced, though, that a deal's been made somewhere. Last night, in comparision to all the rhetoric that's been tossed around over the last month-was WAY too civil.
NMP
· 1 year ago
":The best part of the night was when the crowd booed Wolf Blitzer for his smugness and arrogance in posing a question (but don't expect to read that anywhere on CNN)."
I completely disagree that Wolf Blitzer's question was smug and arrogant. The question should have been asked a long time ago. Not even Einstein would have been able to decipher her answer, but she is effectivelys saying that she was tricked by George Bush. If so, that certainly brings her judgement into question. Do you think that McCain will be shouted down by boos when he asks her the question, which he most certainly will?
NMP
· 1 year ago
And let me add that her attempt to pit Black against Brown was appalling! It is clear that the Clintons will throw any minority group under the bus to win votes. Her obvious hope is that Latinos will not have noticed that she blamed them for African American unemployment and that African Americans will feel betrayed by Senator Obama. This is divide and conquer x 2. Black folks don't fall for it!
Lolo
· 1 year ago
I want to ask her "so, since YOU'RE the one that brought up the race of the construction workers, what race is the OWNER of the company? You know, the guy who chose to exploit the brown vs black situation?"
francis
· 1 year ago
I'm certainly not falling for it.
I said yesterday that as much as I dislike Rudy Giuliani, I will support a McCain/Giuliani ticket before voting for Hillary in any combination. If she's the nominee, or even the vp which I doubt...I'll vote republican.
Americans need to ask themselves how effective would her administration, or anyone elses be with Bill running around the whitehouse overshadowing and second geussing those in charge of shaping policy.
Felicia
· 1 year ago
I think they both did well. As Ronnie B said the crowd was certainly slanted toward Clinton--but I noticed it was an older Hollywood crowd, so maybe that's why.
I was afraid Clinton was winning the debate because she simply overshadows Obama in political experience, and she made a point of reminding everyone of this.
But in the end Obama knocked it out of the ball park because: 1. He didn't take the the bait of pitting blacks against browns, and Clinton effectively through Mexican Latinos under the bus with her driver's license stance. I only hope that Mexican immigrants can see they have more in common with Obama than Clinton before the August DNC convention. 2. He nailed her several times on her Iraq vote, and he pointed out at the end that her argument that she didn't know Bush would use congress' authorization to go to war was ridiculous. Obama said the title of the authorization was "Authorization to got to war with Iraq"; therefore, EVERYONE that voted in support of the measure knew they were authorizing a war.
I'm glad it didn't devolve into bickering because ultimately it hurts both candidates.
rikyrah
· 1 year ago
COme on…she plays the White Woman as Victim role way too easily for me, and he couldn’t walk into that trap. he didn’t give her an inch with which to play that White Woman Victim role.
He looked and sounded Presidential. That’s what he had to do. You know how I am…he’s running 2 campaigns and is running by a rulebook nobody else has to play.
She played that WOMAN #(#*, while he can’t, and can’t call her on it and you know it.
While the audience chuckled about the ‘Maybe it takes another Clinton to clean up behind a Bush’, it was FINALLY out there…and there’s something wrong about it, and people know it.
He needed to look like a President.
After McCain showing his ass last night, he couldn’t do it. It’s not part of his campaign narrative, and he’s back on HIS narrative.
Not only is he back on HIS narrative, but his personality came out. And, yeah, I'm biased, but I just think he's more appealing.
I’m ok with last night.
As far as scapegoating illegals, don’t think that I didn’t notice Miss Hillary pitting Black against Brown last night. She ain’t slick. Not.at.all.
To g.d.: Respectfully, No, I will not be voting for Clinton. The Clintons are unapologetically divisive. They play off of identity politics to win slim pluralities of a fragmented electorate. This does not mean that I'd vote Republican. But you've got to draw the line somewhere.
I have no allegiance to the Clinton brand. Therefore, I see no reason to give them the benefit of the doubt once they resort to gutter politics to obtain power - especially when such gutter politics comes by way of racial code and southern strategey. The Clintons have shown a disturbing level of comfort when it comes to throwing us black folk under the bus to score political points.
I do NOT want to see a Clinton/Obama ticket. The Clintons would smother Obama (just ask Al Gore about his experience as V.P.). He'd be little more than window dressing to the Clinton Co-Presidency. Neither would I want to see an Obama/Clinton ticket. Bill and Hillary Clinton would overshadow and undermine Obama's authority. People might see Obama as an empty suit while still thinking that the Clintons are really in charge.
Additionally, Obama's would-be 2016 race as the incumbent V.P. would surely be handicapped by 8 more years of Clinton fatigue and scandals.
Sure, the Clintons are great so long as everything goes their way. But they showed just how low they're willing to stoop once they're not the center of attention. I, for one, am sick and tired of centrist Democrats taking progressive votes for granted and assuming that we'll always kiss and make up in the end. Bottom line . . . all of that lovey-dovey crap that Hillary tried to show last night goes right out the window the second she gets the feeling that she might lose her "entitlement" to the White House.
Ronnie B
· 1 year ago
i'm curious, tho: y'all are pretty hardcore in the Obama camp. Are you absolutely ruling out voting for Clinton? We asked this question on PostBourgie, but what if Obama is her running mate (that question did come up last night)? Does that alignment miss the point entirely?
Yes. I absolutely rule out voting for the Clintons. That they will sell out their most loyal constituents solely to win the nomination, they have shown their "primary colors". They care for and value nothing but their own power and influence.
B-Serious
· 1 year ago
As for the debate, I gave the slight edge to Obama. Why? As was said amongst some of the punditry, people came into this debate thinking one of two things: 1.) Obama needs to knock the champ out; or 2.) Obama needs to prove that he can go the full twelve rounds.
Hillary's biggest sticking point is her claim that Obama is in over his head; that he lacks experience and a sufficient grasp of the issues. Obama had to show that he's not just all talk. He did that. Obama stuck with Clinton on every issue and showed just as much complexity and understanding of policy as Clinton did.
Plus, I think Obama solidified his position amongst progressives who might have been on the fence between him and Hillary. The discussion of the Iraq war was big. Clinton's refusal to acknowledge her mistake in voting for it; her attempt to justify her vote because she TRUSTED Bush to not use said authorization for war is a JOKE. I saw a few progressives flat out state that her answer was offensive. Obama came out ahead in that part of the debate. I think the war issue still has legs. How can Democrats be the anti-war party and vote for someone who still won't acknowledge that her vote was a mistake? It shows a certain level of stubbornness that many voters are sick of seeing with Bush.
Look, there were no knock-out punches. But Obama did three important things: 1.) He showed that he can be just as much of a policy wonk as Clinton; 2.) He re-established himself as the clear anti-war candidate (relatively speaking) despite the Clintons' attempts to diminish that contrast over the past few weeks; and 3.) He showed that he'd make the best candidate to defeat John McCain should he be the Republican nominee. It's been said before . . . you can't have nearly 70% of the American people against this war, yet still end up with two candidates who voted for it (and show no signs of doubting their decisions). That's what we'd get with a Clinton v. McCain matchup. That's not change.
Most importantly, Obama knows that the longer this thing goes, the more likely he is to get the nomination. Obama is trending upwards and Clinton downward. All Obama's got to do is get a fair split in delegates coming out of Super Tuesday. With(apparently) more money, and a growing list of endorsements, Obama is in very good position to take this thing.
The Bag of Health and Politics
· 1 year ago
No I would not vote for her. For many reasons, her campaign's pathetic conduct being the foremost of them.
And I certainly do not want to see, nor would I be swayed by, a Clinton/Obama ticket. Let's face the facts: Clinton would lose to McCain in November. A Clinton/Obama ticket would mean her cronies--people like Mark Penn and Terry McAullife--would say "on background", "Hillary ran a good campaign, but she had a bad Vice Presidential running mate. Having a black on the ticket was too much for the country." They'd undercut Obama's appeal in 2012, and set up another one of their lackeys--probably Evan Bayh--to run.
And on the off chance that the ticket is successful, the situation is even worse. Obama would then be the Vice President--a totally worthless position with Bill Clinton hanging around and making back room deals. Being associated with the corruption that would certainly come with a Clinton Presidency would be bad, bad news for him. And worse, our party is stuck in the politics of the past for eight more years (Clinton would run for re-election in 2012, so even if she loses then it'll be 2016 before we can change our party). I say heck no to that.
So no, I will not vote for Hillary Clinton. And no, I do not want to see a Clinton/Obama ticket.
DWS
· 1 year ago
I thought Obama did a great job. He wasn't the "angry black man" he was well versed on the issues and was able to point and counterpoint very well. I did notice he had more "audible pauses" than she did (Toastmaster, sorry) but that did not distract from the substance of his arguments.
Some have suggested Hillary was the winner but his ability to get back to the issues and present his position time and time again makes him the winner in my book.
I don't want to see Hillary on the ticket at all, but I would not mind Edwards.
JHD
· 1 year ago
He may become the first black president but he is doing so by running from "black" issues and thus attempting to calm white's fears on a broad level; he is mia on JENA, wants to expand the military by 100,000 troops, failed to lead the charge against the travesty that was and still is Katrina and to be little what is happening in black communities with the tremendous in flux of Latinos into housing, the work place, community groups and business districts was surprising to say the least and I thought it actually showed a rare sign of courage for her to take that stance and it wasn't pitting one against the other but rather a recognition of reality (at least here in the North East where I live). And with respect to him considering the VP slot; our nation would be truly blessed to have him in the White House for 16 years and he would not just be the first black president but a truly historic and tremendous figure that can shepherd our great nation for years and no one could ever question his experience again. Either way we must all catch our breaths and realize, as they both seemed to do last night, that we are seeking a leader for our nation and that person was sitting on that stage last night and the only way we are going to do that is by doing it together whom ever one is supporting.
The Bag of Health and Politics
· 1 year ago
A broader leader for the nation doesn't seek to stoke racial and religious divisions for political gain. Hillary Clinton did just that. Therefore, anybody who cares about those issues shouldn't vote for her in November...If she wins using these kinds of tactics, then it becomes acceptable, and even Obama won't be able to win in the future...
Natasha
· 1 year ago
I was pleased with the debate if only not to see them bicker and have people lose sight of the real differences in two candidates. I think neither did poorly although she may have gotten more points on the subject of healthcare but he countered quite productively when he advised that you can't get anything done if people will not work together. That is a very strong point that I wish he could have hammered in a little more but I think we will see that argument become more obvious as we continue on.
He definately moved the point tally in his favor with the amount of time spent on Iraq. his remark that if what is going on over there is success then that bar is in the sand was great and all but diminishes "the surge is working" argument (not to mention todays attacks over there really reiterate that point).
Barack did exactly what he needed to do. He was able to show people the that he was more then just rhetoric and provide specifics on his plans, and show that he is just as deserving to be on that stage. He got his message across and whit I think will stand out for people who may have been undecided was that either may be a good choice to many but ONLY he has the skills set required to bring both sides together and get things done and at the end of the day THAT is really what is important.
On a side note I agree with all who say the longer this goes on the better it is for him. He has always been more successful once people get to see more of him and he did well tonight. I think the burden was actually on her more then him unlike most of the pundits. I think she needed to show that he was just this young inexpereinced guy we cant trust in the white house and I she was not able to do that. He proved his point more then she proved her argument against hers. I dont think people doubt her intellect and skill set it will be overall personality that brings this home.
As far as the crowd goes I dont think it was skewed to her favor, there were quite a number of black celebrities and according to fundrace many of the white celeberties there have donated to Obama or both. I think they showed their opinion like many others that the reason they want them to run together is so they do not have to choose. It isnt going to happen so we should leave the "dream ticket" talk alone, neither would accept the others invitation to be the VP and I agree that would handicap him more then her in either scenerio (Obama/Clinton Clinton/Obama).
...and finally to the poster that asked the question in regard to coting for Hillary if you would have asked that months ago I would have said yes, but after seeing the tru colors albeit ones that weren;t really hidden now that we are looking I will stay home in November if Hillary is the nominee rather then choosing between the lesser of two evils.
Blkberi
· 1 year ago
1. I don't know about ya'll, but I could've sworn I heard "Reunited" by Peaches and Herb playing in the background throughout the debate.
2. Can Wolf Blitzer please be banned from hosting another debate for the rest of the campaign? He was hell bent on starting some drama!
3. I loved his answer about Latinos taking jobs away from Black folk. Our community has been feeling the economic crunch way before Latinos came here.
4. Why didn't Wolf bring up Hillary not reading the NIE??
5. Lately, Hillary supporters have been trying to scare folks by saying, "Ya'll better watch out if Obama gets the nom because the Repubs will come after him!". After last night, I think he'll be just fine. Loved his line about the GOP being the last ones to talk about fiscal responsibility.
NMP
· 1 year ago
Would I ever consider voting for Cilnton? Hell no! How soon we forget! I will NEVER forgot their racial tactics of the last two weeks. Black folks were infatuated for years because he was the cool White due with the Saxaphone. Well, he exposed himself for what he really is: a red neck whose saxophone morphed into a banjo. And now she thinks she can regain favor with African Americans by oversimplifying the cause of African American unemployment, blaming Latinos! I have issues with illegal immigration, but I do not think it is presidential to pit one group against another. Solve the problem with honest discussion, yes, but don't throw out anecdotal evidence and no facts. The problems in inner city communities are too complex and difficult to be oversimplified and used as a wedge issue. I'm not playing plantation politics with the Democratic Party any longer!
Natasha
· 1 year ago
I do not agree that he was running from "black" issues we all know that if he paints himself as the "black" candidate he would not even be a contender at this point. his platform is that of a uniter and to exploit another minority for his gain as Hillary did is pathetic. He stated was a sound answer that our employment struggle was going on long before the last waive of immigrants came in.
I have no doubt of his commitment to our causes and issues and he has made many comments to substantiate this view. It does more for me to know that when someone is talking about the well being and future of our kids that he understands the true obstacles and is truly including "OUR" kids.
We have to stop allowing the overseer/master mindest to continue to divide us.
Seoul
· 1 year ago
I will vote for McCain over Hillary.
Thankfully, I don't think I'll have to. Obama did a nice job last night. He looked like a guy with the wind at his back.
Anonymous
· 1 year ago
1. Obama needs to watch out for the VP trap. If he continues to give ground as he did last night by saying anyone would have Hillary on their ticket list, it will give voters the easy pass to vote for Hillary because Obama is more amenable to sharing a ticket---when given the pass the American public will put cream before coffee. He need to stick to the notion that he is running for President and president only and not give the voters the opportunity to vote for Clinton as the easy choice because he is more willing to work with her than she him. Hillary was smart not to concede any ground at all on the question. She never stated in anyway that she would have Obama on her short list but she agreed with Obama that anyone would be lucky to have her on their short list.
2. I will not vote for Billary under any circumstance. It is time to make a definitive stand for our community and the Democratic party. It is now or never. If I can't vote Barack Obama for president in November, then I will vote republican or not at all.
3. Someone really needs to add a full pictorial profile of Whoopie Goldberg to the Obama Hater Watch website/list. She sits on the View panel everyday in invisible white face (anyone remember her contribution to the routine where Ted Danson got made up in black face for a show) and castigates Obama every chance she gets from making false claims to saying he doesn't deserve to be the first Black president but Colin Powell does.
SquarePeg
· 1 year ago
nmp, The question was asked by a citizen from Minnesota, who has seen the effects of illegal immigration on her community, as if I had the opportunity, would have asked the same question. The question did not come from Wolf Blitzer and Hillary Clinton answered it in a much better view of reality by actually admitting that citizens of this country were losing their jobs because of illegal immigration.
I have to disagree with you regarding the question posed by a citizen who asked a question if I had been given the opportunity as many others, would have asked. That nobody is talking about the consequences of illegal immigration and its affects upon the African American community. Those so-called jobs they are doing because nobody else wants to do them. That's not a lie, that's a damned lie. Most of those jobs are considered working class, which is not what most of the political intellegencia, academics, or middle class are. Its the working class that is taking the full brunt of allowing this to continue to go unchecked, resulting in lost jobs, reduced wages, unemployment, and to a lesser extent the ills of violence, crimes, and other ills that result when people don't have jobs.
Barack Obama stambled and stumbled, looking for an out that did not allow him to answer the question. HE DID NOT ANSWER THE QUESTION. He is so afraid of alienating one group by speaking the truth, that he might have done himself irreparable damage with the African-American community. To her credit, Hillary Clinton did acknowledge that AA and other working class people are being hurt by illegal immigration. It seemed that Obama was pandering, something I had not seen until that moment. He states that anyone bringing up the subject is trying to scapegoat another group, that is patently false, since it is not a perception but a truth that can be backed up by actual facts, it is not anecedotal.
Please stop all these cumbaya sh##, by pretending that if we don't say it out loud, then all will be well with the world. That's the problem nobody is talking about it, and it should be an issued raised at every one of his town hall meetings until he gives a complete cogent answer on how illegal immigration will be stopped and what he will do to assist the AA community from being the actual scapegoats of somebody else's agenda.
Just take a look at Miami, Florida, it is a microcosm of what will happen in the larger US, if this is not stopped.
Mrs. M.
· 1 year ago
I saw the debate and I really liked the fact that they decided to go the issues route (mostly). But my concern is the spook at the door - Bill Clinton. In the commentary following the debates, quite a few mentioned that it would not have gotten this ugly if it were not for Massa Clinton (a true Southerner - no doubt).
Honestly I was leaning towards Hillary Clinton initially b/c of her connections. But any woman who is willing to let some philandering husband steal her thunder on the world stage at the expense of cordial race relations in the U.S. is not someone I want in the White House.
What is she going to do when she has to meet and greet with those from Africa or the Middle East? Let ol' Massa talk for her? They don't like dealing with women anyway (reference Madeline Albright).
We need someone who can lift this country up - not take us back to 1955.
B-Serious
· 1 year ago
To anonymous - Re: #3
LOL . . .Yeah, Whoopi's been trippin' lately. But, as you alluded to, I rarely look towards her for racial consciousness. Sherri Shephard is of little help as well. That show sees nothing wrong with the Clinton tactics of the past few months. And yes, Hillary is always the victim on that show.
It's a shame when Elizabeth Hasselback turns out to be the voice of reason for racial topics on that show.
Michelle
· 1 year ago
Hillary Clinton - no integrity - neo-racist, as others have said she pitted Brown against Black. I hope the Latino communities get hip to this. - no accountability for the vote for war
You all must read this endorsement at http://www.mapa.org called Si se puede! Obama. These brown brothers and sisters left no stone unturned when it comes to calling out the Clintons racism.
Michelle
· 1 year ago
Oh, I will never vote for Clinton. Never.
I won't vote republican either, but at least they (some of them, not all) don't try to disguise their racism.
Natasha
· 1 year ago
squarepeg - I am in Miami, Fl and trust me the situation here is less about jobs being taken and more about the political connections that the Cuban community have. On one hand the wet foot/dry foot policy is obscene piece of legislation I cannot hate on the Cubans for sticking together in a way black people here do not. When Hatians protest we black Americans do not go and stand up to support ehir cause we allow plantation politics to divide us. I am not naive and am th first to admit the hispanic/black tensions here as I spoke on it in another thread but Barack's answer was not a side step of the issue. We cannot allow white people to divide minorites for their gain. WE had these issues long before "they" started taking our jobs and it is often too easy for US to look for an excuse rather then band together and create our own destiny. We have that opportunity now and if we do not move on it you cannot possibly believe SHE will get it done. Like I said on a different post when I voted Tuesday I saw plenty of hispanics (for Hillary) black women and a few older black men but saw no young disenfranchised black men out voting and if these are the ones whose jobs are being taken shouldnt THEY be taking a stand to DEMAND an audiance?
That was an exact moment for her to pit us against each other in her effort to win US back!
Michelle
· 1 year ago
Check out Obama's Healthcare mailer. The Clinton's don't like it. :(
1. I agree with a previous poster, Wolf Blitzter should be banned from moderating future debates. Hate I missed the booing.
2. The email questions sounded more like CNN talking points, especailly the one about Bush/Clinton being on the ballot for 12 consecutive yeaars. No questions about New Orleans or Katrina despite the efforts of ColorofChange.org.
3. Hillary will not admitt she made a mistake in voting for the war which reminds me of Bush.
4. Obama won the immigration debate.
5. Favorite line of the night was Obama saying Hillary would be on anybody's short list for VP.
6. Obama/Clinton 08
SquarePeg
· 1 year ago
Natasha,
When you have lost hope it is hard to believe again. So as the disenfranchised young men you speak of wouldn't vote, it is possibly due to the fact that they don't have any jobs, no prospect of jobs, the educational system has pissed on them and left them out to dry. Now if you were in that situation, would one of the first things on your mind, be to go out in vote for someone who continues to pander and avoid the impact of immigration upon you and your community.
Yes, the Haitians are here in Miami. But my Sister, and you do know this, Haitians will tell a Black American in a hardbeat they are not Black and many wonder what is the signifcance of the MLK Holiday as they don't know why Blacks in this country complain. Yes, the same Haitians had it not been for some Black person somewhere standing up and saying what was happening to them wouldn't be here today to complain about Black Americans.
The Cubans as you well know had a lot of help from our government that would not even give the same help to its own citizens. They brag about how they are the most successful hispanics in America, but if I received, food stamps, housing subsidies, educational grants, social security even though having worked not one day in this country, I would be expected to have made some inroads, considering that an entire society of educated Cubans were transplanted from Cuba to Miam while Blacks were still struggling for their seat at the table. Know your history before you start preaching. If there had been a Black Slave Adjustment Act similar to the Cuban Refugee Adjustment Act which allowed them to receive small business loans and would not give them to Black Americans, a policy that has been in affect longer than any affirmative action law, then tell me again about how the Cubans stick together. They don't have to the government did it for them.
Now, for a current perspective of how Miamians feel about their city and the impact of the Hispanics on the city please read the following post and absorb some truth.
The rest of Black America, take a look at what has transpired in Miami as a result of unchecked legal and illegal immigration. Do you want this to happen where you live?
Holler!
The Bag of Health and Politics
· 1 year ago
I, according to Godwin's law, now declare Barack Obama the winner of the Democratic Nomination. She who uses Nazi analogies first loses by default...
D.
· 1 year ago
So I'll ask this, for the people who won't vote for Clinton or any Republican....if the democratic choice is Clinton, are you just not going to vote at all?
And if there's ever a reason for me NOT to vote for Obama. there's this:
squarepeg - i respect your opinion but as a sister of carribean descent raised in Miami florida I watched my hard working parents not take the lack of assistance being offered to them as an excuse to do nothing. My mother taught me a long time ago that unfortunately here you will work twice as hard to get just as far so postion yourself so that you can play the game until you position yourself enough to make the rules. All too often we latch on to any excuse to not embrace our own and stay divided. After years of ridicule from black Americans it seems clear to me why they may not align themselves with our plight and although I disagree on that stance from both sides I understood the things that have led up to it. I am not preaching but rather offering a different point of view. In regard to the Cubans trust me I share your view of the amount of assistance offered to Cuban immigrants but their success has proven to be more about their abilty to assimilate and become part of "white' America all while mobilizing their communities banding together and pushing their causes and for this why hate.
My take is before I look to clean anyone elses yard or look for someone else to clean mine i clean my own. We must unite and before you can unite physically you have to unite mentally. Like I said before I am inspired in a way I have never been and I take pride in the opportunity awaiting us where my children will have an image of power success and leadership that looks liek them. We get a black FAMILY something that is too rare to locate on television as an image of love and commitment that I think in this day and age we need. That question yesterday if answered in any different way by him would have been THE soundbyte of the day and would have been the beginning of the end instead her answer is the one getting all of the negative spin. Please do not misunderstand me RACE MATTERS but if you do not modify content and delivery depending on your audience as what good do your words and opinions do if no one is listening.
Again my friend it is like a box ball - you play the game until you get in the box and get to change the rules.
Natasha
· 1 year ago
that is a reference to a game of box ball :)
CAB
· 1 year ago
D,
There are third parties...
Michelle
· 1 year ago
D,
For me it is a personal and political choice not to vote for Hillary or a Republican. First, I just can't reward race-baiting, among other things.
Second, I believe, like Barack, the power resides in the people. We have the power to let the status quo know that dynasty, race-baiting politics, divisive politics, will not work anymore. See, the only way the status quo remains is by the consent of the people. Yes, we may complain, but if we do not take a risk and act in some manner on that complaint, then we are complicit. What the status quo wants more than anything is to keep people of color separate. Divide and Conquer. You notice there is not much news, if any, about Hillary's scapegoating Latinos for AA job loss. White folk would be up the creek if Brown and Black came together, ain't no way our voices or agendas wouldn't be heard by someone who is Brown or Black or both. That's what they don't want and that is their fear with Obama.
About moveon.org. And Fox news. -- I am not conceding my power to them. I make my decisions based on my knowledge of racial history, the converging stories of people of color in the US, the betrayal of white feminists/organizations to people of color, the disgust of Hillary playing the gender card and the race card (whiteness and fear of "colored unity"). I base my decision on integrity, family values, fidelity, and the desire for leading family that is not tainted and spotted from illicit deals and actions that sucks the life out of our economy, our hope, and our belief in government.
Damn. . . brown and black and yellow and whites w/out money built this country.
Natasha
· 1 year ago
Well said Michelle.
D.
· 1 year ago
Michelle, I agree that if-and this is a pretty big if-blacks and other minorities had a candidate that exemplified our values and what we wanted, there's no way that candidate could be ignored.
To an extent, I acknowledge that Obama could well be that candidate.
However, with the dangers this country faces externally, and our bitter partisianship internally, this is not the time for that sort of social experiment. We will die as a country if we rally behind ANY candidate whose goal is to lead this country into the minefield of "change." there is too much at stake.
Michelle
· 1 year ago
D,
If that is what you feel in your heart, go for what you know.
This is what I know.
Clintons (and we must look at them together) 1. millions of blacks are already dead from the failure to stop genocide in Rwanda, the failure to treat Haitians humanely
2.divisiveness is the Clinton way to rule and conquer. They have proven they can't/will not work with independents and republicans, Hillary laughed at the idea of talking to our "enemies" around the world, and as I have stated, they continue to fuel race wars within the party, which benefits them because whiteness is so invisible to us.
3. I am not as fearful of "others" who seek to do us harm from abroad as I am of wolves in sheeps' clothing who live within our borders.
At some point you(we) have to stand for change. If not now, when? If not us, who?
I am not voting on fear of change. I welcome it. I pray for it.
I teach African American studies at a university in the south. We were discussing the Matrix and talked about the line where Morpheus says some people are so hopelessly committed to the system that they will do anything in their power to defend it, even people who are harmed by it. Because, I believe, we are a people who suffer from Stockholm syndrome. For hundreds of years our bodies and minds were kidnapped, tortured, and taught to love and respect the system. That same plantation system and mentality resides within so many of us (people of color in general). We are a colonized people. But the plantation offers somes semblance of consistency and well-being. At least we eat, right? At least we have public eduation, right? Even though the system reserves the worst food, the worst grocery stores, the worst schools for us. At least. . . And, we will defend it because we don't know or see any better.
Change is scary. Faith is the substance of things hoped for and the evidence of things not seen. There is no way for us to see the possibilities because we have never been this close to change, at least in this manner, before. I'm sure Nat Turner was afraid, Ida B. Wells was afraid, MLK was afraid, etc. They had no assurance either and were directly confronted with the real possiblity of dying - any day, any time. We are not, at least not by a terrorist, like some would have us to believe.
What this means for me is we have other options. We don't have to remain on the plantation. We don't even have to be sharecroppers anymore. The Clintons want us to be sharecroppers. They want us to owe them more than we make, and to appear as benevolent oversears.
The Republican option is a no-brainer.
The other option (as has been discussed in other threads on this blog) is for the power of the people to say know to the sharecropper. . . we will not work the land for you, stock your fridge, pay you for working the land, and still have to borrow money from you in order to eat. That means I don't vote to support a sharecropping political system. I might write in Obama's name. Does this mean Obama will revolutionize the entire system (Matrix) for us. Probably not. Will his election and presidency moves us closer to a more just society. Yes. I want to move.
What say ye?
BTW, I didn't proofread.:)
D.
· 1 year ago
Michelle, Very well said.
Though I'm a McCain supporter. Can't stand the Clintons. :)
Michelle
· 1 year ago
Hello Community,
Cornel West is on C-Span now. Talking about Race and the election.
He was one of Obama's earliest supporters. Didn't wait or jump on the Obama ain't a true ng. bandwagon. Watch live online
I could not have said it any better myself. Bravo!
DWS
· 1 year ago
Michelle,
Very well said.
rikyrah
· 1 year ago
I'm not voting for Clinton. Period.
I WILL vote. I just won't vote for her.
I will not be complicit in setting into cement a ceiling for Black candidates in the future. For, if she succeeds with her race-baiting, then it will be used on other Black candidates - count on it.
So, no, I'm not going to be complicit in that.
BlackProfessionalEvents
· 1 year ago
I missed it too , very shame on me.
Michelle
· 1 year ago
Good News!
Mandatory Health Insurance Shot Down in CA
This backs up Obama argument that Clinton's mandatory program will penalize people. You must read this article. It discusses possible tax exemptions being taken away, wages garnished, etc.
How guy is really smart. Hillarycare would have failed again.
i'm really sad that you guys will look for any reason to hate hillary, whether or not it's true. i have no beef with people who support obama, but i just wish they'd be fair to hillary in the process. if any of you are still interested in keeping an open mind: http://www.mydd.com/story/2008/2/1/155828/4680.
Michelle
· 1 year ago
Nance,
What's not true? Who's not fair? About what?
CAB
· 1 year ago
Nance,
I don't think calling their reasons, most of which seem to hit on the same theme, "any reason", as though people are throwing darts on a 100-Reasons-to-Hate-Hillary dartboard and using whatever talking point it lands on, is very fair or respectful of the intellect of the people you're talking to.
If you read what they're saying, most of it will talk about the idea that the Clinton campaign started race-baiting Obama at least since the IA caucuses if not before and that for many (not all but many) bloggers of color who watch this election closely, those tactics are too Machivellian, too craven, too racist to let any precedent of support for such politics stand. They, from what I gather, do not hate Hillary, are not being irrational and don't worship Obama. (I hope they don't)
What I see are people who feel this is about principle and fairness. They see a white family (The Clintons) privileged even among whites going against a talented man of color and using race-baiting tactics to keep him down and they care less about defeating the Republican than they do about not supporting race-baiting tactics, not now, not ever.
Do I agree? No. I have said that I feel McCain and Romney and Co. will set a worse precedent for the entire nation including us as people of color, then the Clinton campaign. I feel the GOP has not changed to a center-right party that at least believes in responsible tax policy or responsible foreign policy or at least responsible politics. They still are pandering, bottom of the barrel, far-Right ideologues and they have to be stopped.
But, please try to understand where others are coming from.
Hyperbole that insists people unwilling to vote for someone they feel has denigrated them personally by using racially-coded language deliberately and repeatedly are somehow unable to have "an open mind" makes a mockery of itself.
Nance
· 1 year ago
i don't want to offend anyone, and i'm sorry if i've done so without meaning to. it just hurts to see people writing the clintons off without getting to know them. i feel like all of us are hard-pressed to find unbiased coverage anymore--and i think the clintons are getting a raw deal: http://www.cmpa.com/releases.html, or http://mediamatters.org/items/200801260001?f=i_... i think most people of all races don't know that hillary has the most diverse staff of anyone running in this race, dem or republican. i'm just sad that she's getting beaten up unfairly, and that's not an insult to anyone's intelligence; it's just a sense of despair at how people of all colors--black, white, hispanic, native american, and asian--are so quick to dismiss her.
Michelle
· 1 year ago
I wouldn't say it's been so quick. At least not for me. I don't care how diverse your staff is, if you abandon black women in the time of need (Guinier, Elders, Cole), ignore GENOCIDE in Rwanda, support NAFTA, encourage a race war between Blacks and Whites, and Blacks and Browns, use your workplace and position to gain sexual favors, etc., your diverse staff means nothing.
The Clintons have been all up and through black folks communities and churches. I think we know them. The question is, do they know us?
You sound like a sincere supporter, and I wish you well.
Nance
· 1 year ago
i understand. i wish you all well too.
CAB
· 1 year ago
Nance,
Speaking for myself only I'd love to have a conversation as to why I think a lot possible Clinton supporters are swearing them off and dismissing them. I'll do what I can to be civil and respectful and just try to be honest.
First things first, I agree that from what little I know, her staff I believe was the most diverse of any presidential candidate in the major parties. (I don't know about 3rd parties is all) That is, to me, a great thing, if it belies the sort of campaign she would run, the sort of politics in which she would engage.
Secondly, I sincerely agree with you that Hillary Clinton has gotten a LOT of negative press, and very much of it was unearned. People of the left and right hate them in the media and throughout America. This leads to staunch defenders, of course, but it also has to obviously led to negative biases and negative stories in the press. Chris Matthews comes to mind right off the bat.
--->Now, to go on what may be considered a tangent but is actually important to this discussion, I feel that black voters in particular are known, rightly or wrongly, (I do not have exit polls from Clinton's 92 and 96 runs) as historically strong Clinton backers. Historically rock-solid, in fact. With this rock-solid base, I believe, there was supposed to be a sort of unwritten social contract, where black America was at least supposed to feel defended by the Clintons and not attacked.
When Barack Obama came into the race, my suspicion is that contract became a tightrope that the Clinton campaign gave up on when Obama took Iowa. They began with the drug smear and the unfounded implication and accusation that Obama SOLD drugs, and then they moved onto repeating right-wing smears of his name and implying he was a Muslim, wrongly.
I don't have to continue down this path, because not only do I think you know this all already, but there is a wiki already set up on this site that details many of these and other incidents that the Clinton campaign has gone into that culminate in a very distasteful, racially-charged experience that has been almost completely orchestrated and run by the Clinton campaign, while Barack Obama's campaign has tried, unwittingly to follow up with its own attacks and antics, falling in part to the trap set up for them.
This clearly broke the social contract and left many fellow brothers and sisters confused, unable to understand why the "first black president", at what seems now to be the climax of this strategy so far, would dismiss the black voters of South Carolina as mere sheeple.
So to me, when you ask why there are so many black bloggers here that are mad at Bill and Hillary so much (and of course it'll be taken out on Hillary who ostensibly runs her own campaign) that they're promising not to vote for her, I point to the breaking of what seemed a simple promise -- don't insult us. They did, and so a lot of people are done with them.
So, let me try to say this in a way that answers your comment.
It's not that these bloggers haven't tried to understand the Clintons and where they're coming from.
It's more like: A) The Clintons clearly don't understand black America enough to know that using racial dogwhistle time after time after time were not going to play with black voters who saw a possibly successful black candidate. B) Black America either knew the Clintons enough to vote for Bill twice, or not enough to know that his Slick Willie tactics could one day reverberate onto one of our own.
I again think it's to our peril ultimately if we are the deciding vote that allows a GOP president for what'll probably be 8 more years, but I must say I find it hard to be sympathetic to the cause of having black voters, who have been repeatedly insulted, demeaned, debased and attacked by the Clinton campaign in this cycle (all in the pursuit of victory), suddenly ignore this slander and vote Hillary.
To be plain, there are immensely, earth-shatteringly many hurt feelings. And that's an important problem for the Clinton team come general election time.
CAB
· 1 year ago
Michelle,
Let me take note of what you said, because I think I was a little ignorant in my first couple replies.
I do not think the Clinton administration was overall "black" by ANY gracious standards about which we look at black America. Bill Clinton was only "black" if we look at blackness through the corrupted lens of negative stereotypes.
Still, like I said, I think personally that the GOP has such a crock of shit crop of candidates that they need to be defeated. I do not like many of Hillary's policy positions and I hated her entire campaign tactic and theme to the core, but I do not want another administration like the one we have now. I do not think you do either.
I believe firmly that John McCain or Mitt Romney would be worse for all of us as people and as Americans than both Clintons combined, though they are far and away not the best choice.
(The best choice is Green Party, but who's counting?)
Maybe I'm believing in a boogeyman or something, but I do not see the Democratic Party and Republican Party as two hands of the same fist, but as two arms of the same body. I believe that if our arm gets stronger than the Right's, we can make some small-scale but still important changes to the body politic and I cannot let that go.
D.
· 1 year ago
"I believe firmly that John McCain ... would be worse for all of us as people and as Americans"
Why? Because he is a leader and not some vague "agent of change?"
I'd like to know what exactly is up with the anti-Republican bias. Is it one or more policy beefs, or is it just a hatred of the current administration?
Cause if its the latter, Bush isn't running again.
Realize that this election is a choice between the reassertment of freedom and democracy as the "last best hope" for this world, and the exchange of that freedom and democracy for vague (in Obama's case) or outrightly socialist (in Clinton's) ideas.
Those who would mortgage what this country could be-a stable, secure, strong model of freedom for those who desire it- for their own self interests or a place in history will ultimately find themselves staring at the barrel of a gun...either from those own special interests or from an outside enemy who wants to destroy us.
Webb
· 1 year ago
@Nance, thanks for your perspective on Hillary (I read your blog)...but some of us know who the Clintons really are and we have chosen to elevate our standards to a higher plateau. Michelle and Cab have already preached; they really broke-it-down.
None of us turned our backs on the Clintons; the Clintons turned their backs on us. They threw us under the bus, and threw any number of other constituencies under the bus for political expediency. Their strategy is to play the polls tit-for-tat (IRAQ War Vote, ie.), instead of being bold, principled and visionary.
We deserve (and CAN HAVE) better leadership.
Angela
· 1 year ago
I just saw this notice on MSNBC........Caroline Kennedy and Oprah are doing something in LA this week-end for Obama!!!!! Go Barack!!!!!!!! Get all you California friends to spread the word and better yet, show up.
IdeaSharer
· 1 year ago
It seems to have gone unmentioned that Clinton also used the myth that Iraq threw out inspectors in 1998 to defend her decision to authorize force. Considering that her husband was president at the time, she either wasn't paying attention or hopes that the American people have heard this lie so many times from the Bush administration that they believe it.
"Some people now think that this was a very clear, open-and-shut case. We bombed them for days in 1998 because Saddam Hussein threw out inspectors." - HRC Los Angeles Democratic Debate
dont worry i didnt watch, had alread seen 6 of the 17 and can u say repeat. i watched Michelle Obama on CSPAN. much better he has a Coretta.
CAB
· 1 year ago
D,
I think having tax cuts that help widen the economic gap and ultimately weaken the economy are bad. I think it should be evident that Reaganomics didn't work well while Reagan was in office and it's not doing so now. Doing so especially in a time of war, when we need revenue for the supplies and tools needed for the troops, that to me is disgusting and McCain 1.0 thought the same thing. Too bad McCain 2.0 "evolved his position" on tax cuts for the wealthy.
I think universal health care is a right of free people that our government has abridged for too long. I don't think "freedom" and "liberty" just mean let corporations run wild on the backs of the people. I think true liberty involves an amount of equity as well, and so unexplained "socialist" fearmongering won't sway me.
Universal health care would provide massive budgetary savings, lowers premium costs, and can allow MORE choice and portability of medical insurance and coverage than current managed care. So, yeah, hate us horrible tax-and-spend liberals who love to save money and expand choice.
I think the pre-emptive warfare has to be something America has to be more careful and honest about, not just jumping into war without a purpose or on false premises. That obviously did not happen with respect to Iraq and I think we need to leave. I do not like that we invaded Iraq, to be civil about it, and I cannot vote for candidates who want to continue the war in Iraq.
This doesn't mean that I hate the troops or that I want terrorists to win. I think we'd have National Guard troops that could be in America, ready to protect us in case of any sort of national emergency if we didn't have this unnecessary war, I think we'd have the troops available to secure Afghanistan and attack Osama bin Laden along the Afghanistan-Pakistan border if we were not engaged in this war, and I think our nation would have more soft power within the Middle East were we not so stubbornly refusing to consider leaving Iraq.
Lastly, the politics of the Republican Party are at least equally disdainful, in my mind, as that of Hillary Clinton. The GOP seems to have no problem with fearmongering, (If you don't support me, then the country will be attacked again sort of rhetoric for one) nor identity smearing. (Barack HUSSEIN Obama, the madrassa story, calling Hillary the "bitch", John Edwards the "faggot", etc.)
There's more reasons to despise the current crop of GOP candidates and the party, but I wanted just to give you the first few things that came to my mind about this corporatist, fascist, pandering, hateful ideologues that call themselves leaders.
Caged Lion
· 1 year ago
Michele @fri 2:26,
Great answer.
I for one am exhausted from enduring the insulting paternalistic interrogations on this and other comment posts. No other constituency is talked down to as black folk regarding their voting decisions.
I have had many political discussions with buddies to try to win them over. Of all the tactics at my disposal, condescension would be the last thing to try.
We know about Clinton; we know about Obama. We definitely know about the republicans. The average reader of this blog is a political junkie.
Please keep this in mind the next time you click "post" whose ostensible intent is to convince some of us to reconsider voting Clinton or (for some of us) to make the unappealing choice to go McCain.
D.
· 1 year ago
Lion, As a McCain supporter, I'm not here to try to get anyone to consider voting for him. My opinion is that most people who read/post here would flat out not vote for McCain, or would only vote for him to vote against Clinton (in which case, to me, they're wasting their vote). I post to get people to see what more is at stake in this election, and what I think their votes could mean for this country.
Cab, Couple of points:
1. Republicans did not give Obama his middle name. It may seem stupid in this forum, but I assure you that to a segment of the American electorate, his name and his history raise concerns.
2. Nowhere in the Constitution is health care listed as a "right" of any American. I have no problem with reforming the current health care system, but let's also address issues such as chronic disease, instead of just demanding the government-or namely, you and I-pay for people who haven't been held to a level of responsibility with their health.
3. If we leave Iraq as a broken, torn country, we consign ourselves to defeat. Which means the terrorists win. Whether we should have invaded or not is a discussion which will not be finished until long after we're dead. But understand that removing our troops before their mission is complete-a mission which was validated by the confirmation votes for GEN Petraeus-is inexplicably tied to our defeat in Iraq, and possibly in the War on Terror as a whole.
Gregory
· 1 year ago
Looks like Bill Clinton is going on an "apology tour" of black churches in LA accompanied by Congresswoman Maxine Waters. I guess CA is more in play that we thought. More at DailyKos: http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2008/2/2/1194...
rikyrah
· 1 year ago
Nance,
Once upon a time, I was willing to hold my nose and vote for Hillary.
No more.
From the beginning, her sense of entitlement reeked and pissed me off. She is NOT entitled to be President of the United States because she let that man humiliate her on a worldwide stage. She's not.
And while, she reeked of the condescention towards Obama with the air of ' Who the hell does this Uppity Nigger think he is?', it was only something other Uppity Niggers like myself would notice. We know all the signs of disrespect.
The moment it crossed the line to the point where I'd NEVER vote for her, was when she began her plan of RACE-BAITING Barack Obama.
It began with Billy Shaheen, and just check with the Clinton Attacks Obama Wiki Incident Page that is linked on the left.
Let me make this as plain as possible for you.
The MOMENT they chose to actively try and racebait Obama, it became BEYOND Obama.
If she is allowed to racebait her way into the Democratic Nomination, then the plan will be set in stone for ANY future Black politician.
I'm Black first, and any political party next. I will NOT be an active participant in helping set the blueprint to handicap future Black politicans. I'm not like those Hispanics in Nevada, that AFTER she attempted to DISENFRANCHISE THEM, they STILL voted for her. No Uncle Ruckus here.
The dismissiveness towards Black folk; the absolute insulting towards my Brothers and Sisters in South Carolina; the arrogance in the ' well, you don't have anywhere else to go', combine them all, and it adds up to me NEVER voting for her. I'm not shuffling back to the Clinton Plantation.
EVER.
rikyrah
· 1 year ago
gregory,
very interesting.
but..but....but....the 'Progressives' told me that Massa Bill and Miss Hillary didn't do nuthin'. They didn't offend ' nobody'....so, why's he creeping in the churches?
Uh huh.
It was all in our ' imagination'.
Gregory
· 1 year ago
rikyrah,
LOL, that's what I was thinking: Well if they didn't do nothin, why are they apologizing?
And Clinton was trying to stir up more mess at the debate trying to pit black against brown with her little anecdote about some black guy in GA complaining about latino immigrants taking jobs (a.k.a. Clinton throwing latinos under that campaign bus). I'm glad Obama responded about not scapegoating.
TrueBlue
· 1 year ago
This from Talking Points Memo. What nerve this has-been has got! "Touch the people"......f*ck em both.
Bill Clinton To Go On "Mea Culpa Tour" Of Black Churches By Eric Kleefeld - February 2, 2008, 3:07PM The Clinton campaign apparently understands that they need to shore up some African-American support after Bill Clinton's aggressive campaign rhetoric against Barack Obama in South Carolina — Bill is set to go on a tour of black churches in Los Angeles tomorrow, CNN reports.
"They need to go touch the people like they did before. The bickering they got in in South Carolina must be put aside," said an unnamed elected official who will accompany Bill on the trip, and who described it as a "mea culpa tour." "Bill is going to have to come back among those who loved him and he did so much for. He is going to have to do it – I can't do it for him – and face the voters."'
CAB
· 1 year ago
D,
1. Just as fellow Republicans did not give Sen. McCain his age, but voters worry about that, too. Is that fair? I don't think it is. Maybe my mind will change as the general election approaches and I become more partisan, that's entirely possible, but right now, making such characteristics into political issues is still objectionable politics, like the "illegitimate brown baby" robocalls in the 2000 GOP primary.
2. You're right, I'm wrong on that one. I had thought the US had ratified the UDHR's Covenant of Economic, Social and Cultural Rights. It's about on par with individual ownership of firearms -- not a right but a privilege. So I accept that it is not a right, though I think we SHOULD then ratify the Covenant of Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, and we have to ensure that every citizen has an opportunity to be healthy by providing health insurance to all. We provide health coverage to prisoners, we should at least give the same *privileges* to the rest of the citizenry.
3. Accepting that the Iraq War is a part of the War on Terror is misleading. It was not until we invaded and attracted more people against our country. Staying there has festered more violence around the world. Will groups like Al Qaeda and HAMAS still wish for our downfall? Yes. Do we have to give them ammunition by perpetually occupying Arab lands? No.
I also do not think we should set a precedent that a president can lie the nation into a war with doomsday rhetoric and then afterward say the problem the invasion started needs to be damped down, thusly we need to continue the war based on lies in the first place. Does that make sense? I do not want this sort of war happening again and if we continue to sanction it by allowing permanent bases and occupation and accepting the entire conflict as necessary, we'll be setting just such a precedent. That precedent is MUCH more harmful for us, encouraging perpetual offensive warfare, than withdrawal is, at this point. Either way, we've helped al Qaeda regain strength, either we continue to help them regain strength or we don't. I say we don't.
On another point, the idea that because a debate over the way we went into the war will be long means it shouldn't be a factor now is off-base. Why we bombed Iraqi villages and cities, busted down their doors and searched their homes, deposed not only their dictator and his corrupt family members but also many influential people who happened to be a part of his party, (the only one allowed to participate I believe) etc. is important. It's important to us as the people funding and sanctioning this war and it's important to the Iraqi people and to the countries in the region who have to take in refugees, spend many resources to secure their borders and plan to grapple either with a vacuum of power or a U.S. pawn complicit in further American aggression. They need to believe that these consequences are undertaken because the mission we are taking in Iraq is noble, and not that it's the latest reason given by an incompetent administration that wanted war before it knew what that meant.
We can't just sweep the way we went in under the rug, well maybe we can here because it feels better that way, but it goes toward credibility, integrity, soft power, the ability to affect positive change in other nations without aggressive means and thusly the ability to effectively fight terrorism on multiple fronts with allies of all different types. If we don't have credible reasons for attacking nations pre-emptively, then when we say we want to fight terrorism and we equate this war with terror, people don't believe us and they shouldn't.
D.
· 1 year ago
Cab, 1. McCain's age concerns me. But I still think that he is the best qualified to lead this country, just as you feel Obama is, regardless of his name. To us, BOTH of these arguments are stupid...but they can't be discounted.
2. The individual right to bear arms IS specifically listed in the Constitution.
3. The US is not in Iraq as an occupying power. Iraq has a democratically elected government. Our military is there to serve as a security solution until the country, its government and its military are able to sustain and secure their country.
Yes, we screwed up the peace. We screwed up de-Baathification. We made mistakes. We violated one of Sun Tzu's tenets in The Art of War: never wake up with more enemies that you had the previous day. Mistakes were made in Iraq, just like they've been made in EVERY previous military action that this country's undertaken.
But at the end of the day, regardless of how and why radical islamists and terrorists got to Iraq, they are there. And their sworn mission-hell, their only reason for existence; what they PRAY for-is to destroy this country and our way of life. That's not fearmongering, that's THEIR doctrine.
And we can choose to fight them house to house in Iraq, and wherever else they appear...or we can slug it out with them in our country. While we'll win in either location, I refuse to vote for ANY candidate-be they a democrat or Republican-that would take the risk of radical islam establishing a foothold in this country. I didn't serve my country in this war to let that happen, and I refuse to let anyone else to.
If we cut and run in Iraq, we grant creedence to what bin Laden said after the battle of Mogadishu in 1993 (I'm watching Black Hawk Down right now): we become the "paper tiger," unwilling to finish the job and stay for the long haul.
Do we need a permanent base in Iraq? That is a strategic decision to be made by the President and his military leadership, and NOT by the latest poll.
A question for you (and anyone else who wants to pipe in): I could've sworn I heard that Obama would go into Pakistan unilaterally if he knew bin Laden was there. Does this sort of preemptive unilateralism-essentially, the Bush Doctrine in black skin-become valid when YOUR candidate supports it?
Michelle
· 1 year ago
The amazing musical group Sweet Honey in the Rock have a song called "No More Auction Block." I think all Black churches should play it Sunday morning, repeatedly, instead of the usual services.
Listen to the song, kneel before your God, and pray that we are no longer slaves.
What's most important to me - at least for the future of our people and political power- is that the establishment know that they cannot ever take our votes for granted again.
All Comments
Both were a bit more detailed in their health care plans, offering a little more "wonk" in their policy. And both seemed to go out of their way to be more cordial, while endeavoring to display a unified front in defeating the Republican nominee in November.
The crowd--seemingly a smattering of Black celebs and poseur White women wearing scarves and I'm-smarter-than-you glasses. You know; the Hollywood set. Certainly a crowd that catered more to Hank than to Barack.
Barack seemed to be better prepared at highlighting the policy differences between the two; at the same time, it seemed that Hank received a bit more talk time.
The best part of the night was when the crowd booed Wolf Blitzer for his smugness and arrogance in posing a question (but don't expect to read that anywhere on CNN).
All in all, the debates were more of a conversation. There weren't any winners, and probably no new converts. Due credit, though, to Barack for not "reinventing" himself for the night.
I half-expected them to start setting each other up for punchlines.
I appreciated the wonkishness, this go 'round. I think, though, that it highlights the problems that both candidates are having: the nuts and bolts of their health care plans are similar enough (roll back the Bush tax cuts for the highest income earners to pay for it) that it again relegated this decision for the undecided to a matter of preference for one candidate's style.
i'm curious, tho: y'all are pretty hardcore in the Obama camp. Are you absolutely ruling out voting for Clinton? We asked this question on PostBourgie, but what if Obama is her running mate (that question did come up last night)? Does that alignment miss the point entirely?
I got a sneaking suspicion that between Edwards, Obama, and Clinton-two of them are going to end up on the ticket, and the other is going to play a significant role in the administration (Obama as a SC justice if a vacancy opens up, Edwards as a cabinet secretary, Clinton as...still thinking).
I'm convinced, though, that a deal's been made somewhere. Last night, in comparision to all the rhetoric that's been tossed around over the last month-was WAY too civil.
I completely disagree that Wolf Blitzer's question was smug and arrogant. The question should have been asked a long time ago. Not even Einstein would have been able to decipher her answer, but she is effectivelys saying that she was tricked by George Bush. If so, that certainly brings her judgement into question. Do you think that McCain will be shouted down by boos when he asks her the question, which he most certainly will?
I said yesterday that as much as I dislike Rudy Giuliani, I will support a McCain/Giuliani ticket before voting for Hillary in any combination. If she's the nominee, or even the vp which I doubt...I'll vote republican.
Americans need to ask themselves how effective would her administration, or anyone elses be with Bill running around the whitehouse overshadowing and second geussing those in charge of shaping policy.
I was afraid Clinton was winning the debate because she simply overshadows Obama in political experience, and she made a point of reminding everyone of this.
But in the end Obama knocked it out of the ball park because:
1. He didn't take the the bait of pitting blacks against browns, and Clinton effectively through Mexican Latinos under the bus with her driver's license stance. I only hope that Mexican immigrants can see they have more in common with Obama than Clinton before the August DNC convention.
2. He nailed her several times on her Iraq vote, and he pointed out at the end that her argument that she didn't know Bush would use congress' authorization to go to war was ridiculous. Obama said the title of the authorization was "Authorization to got to war with Iraq"; therefore, EVERYONE that voted in support of the measure knew they were authorizing a war.
I'm glad it didn't devolve into bickering because ultimately it hurts both candidates.
He looked and sounded Presidential. That’s what he had to do. You know how I am…he’s running 2 campaigns and is running by a rulebook nobody else has to play.
She played that WOMAN #(#*, while he can’t, and can’t call her on it and you know it.
While the audience chuckled about the ‘Maybe it takes another Clinton to clean up behind a Bush’, it was FINALLY out there…and there’s something wrong about it, and people know it.
He needed to look like a President.
After McCain showing his ass last night, he couldn’t do it. It’s not part of his campaign narrative, and he’s back on HIS narrative.
Not only is he back on HIS narrative, but his personality came out. And, yeah, I'm biased, but I just think he's more appealing.
I’m ok with last night.
As far as scapegoating illegals, don’t think that I didn’t notice Miss Hillary pitting Black against Brown last night. She ain’t slick. Not.at.all.
To g.d.: Respectfully, No, I will not be voting for Clinton. The Clintons are unapologetically divisive. They play off of identity politics to win slim pluralities of a fragmented electorate. This does not mean that I'd vote Republican. But you've got to draw the line somewhere.
I have no allegiance to the Clinton brand. Therefore, I see no reason to give them the benefit of the doubt once they resort to gutter politics to obtain power - especially when such gutter politics comes by way of racial code and southern strategey. The Clintons have shown a disturbing level of comfort when it comes to throwing us black folk under the bus to score political points.
I do NOT want to see a Clinton/Obama ticket. The Clintons would smother Obama (just ask Al Gore about his experience as V.P.). He'd be little more than window dressing to the Clinton Co-Presidency. Neither would I want to see an Obama/Clinton ticket. Bill and Hillary Clinton would overshadow and undermine Obama's authority. People might see Obama as an empty suit while still thinking that the Clintons are really in charge.
Additionally, Obama's would-be 2016 race as the incumbent V.P. would surely be handicapped by 8 more years of Clinton fatigue and scandals.
Sure, the Clintons are great so long as everything goes their way. But they showed just how low they're willing to stoop once they're not the center of attention. I, for one, am sick and tired of centrist Democrats taking progressive votes for granted and assuming that we'll always kiss and make up in the end. Bottom line . . . all of that lovey-dovey crap that Hillary tried to show last night goes right out the window the second she gets the feeling that she might lose her "entitlement" to the White House.
Yes. I absolutely rule out voting for the Clintons. That they will sell out their most loyal constituents solely to win the nomination, they have shown their "primary colors". They care for and value nothing but their own power and influence.
Hillary's biggest sticking point is her claim that Obama is in over his head; that he lacks experience and a sufficient grasp of the issues. Obama had to show that he's not just all talk. He did that. Obama stuck with Clinton on every issue and showed just as much complexity and understanding of policy as Clinton did.
Plus, I think Obama solidified his position amongst progressives who might have been on the fence between him and Hillary. The discussion of the Iraq war was big. Clinton's refusal to acknowledge her mistake in voting for it; her attempt to justify her vote because she TRUSTED Bush to not use said authorization for war is a JOKE. I saw a few progressives flat out state that her answer was offensive. Obama came out ahead in that part of the debate. I think the war issue still has legs. How can Democrats be the anti-war party and vote for someone who still won't acknowledge that her vote was a mistake? It shows a certain level of stubbornness that many voters are sick of seeing with Bush.
Look, there were no knock-out punches. But Obama did three important things: 1.) He showed that he can be just as much of a policy wonk as Clinton; 2.) He re-established himself as the clear anti-war candidate (relatively speaking) despite the Clintons' attempts to diminish that contrast over the past few weeks; and 3.) He showed that he'd make the best candidate to defeat John McCain should he be the Republican nominee. It's been said before . . . you can't have nearly 70% of the American people against this war, yet still end up with two candidates who voted for it (and show no signs of doubting their decisions). That's what we'd get with a Clinton v. McCain matchup. That's not change.
Most importantly, Obama knows that the longer this thing goes, the more likely he is to get the nomination. Obama is trending upwards and Clinton downward. All Obama's got to do is get a fair split in delegates coming out of Super Tuesday. With(apparently) more money, and a growing list of endorsements, Obama is in very good position to take this thing.
And I certainly do not want to see, nor would I be swayed by, a Clinton/Obama ticket. Let's face the facts: Clinton would lose to McCain in November. A Clinton/Obama ticket would mean her cronies--people like Mark Penn and Terry McAullife--would say "on background", "Hillary ran a good campaign, but she had a bad Vice Presidential running mate. Having a black on the ticket was too much for the country." They'd undercut Obama's appeal in 2012, and set up another one of their lackeys--probably Evan Bayh--to run.
And on the off chance that the ticket is successful, the situation is even worse. Obama would then be the Vice President--a totally worthless position with Bill Clinton hanging around and making back room deals. Being associated with the corruption that would certainly come with a Clinton Presidency would be bad, bad news for him. And worse, our party is stuck in the politics of the past for eight more years (Clinton would run for re-election in 2012, so even if she loses then it'll be 2016 before we can change our party). I say heck no to that.
So no, I will not vote for Hillary Clinton. And no, I do not want to see a Clinton/Obama ticket.
Some have suggested Hillary was the winner but his ability to get back to the issues and present his position time and time again makes him the winner in my book.
I don't want to see Hillary on the ticket at all, but I would not mind Edwards.
He definately moved the point tally in his favor with the amount of time spent on Iraq. his remark that if what is going on over there is success then that bar is in the sand was great and all but diminishes "the surge is working" argument (not to mention todays attacks over there really reiterate that point).
Barack did exactly what he needed to do. He was able to show people the that he was more then just rhetoric and provide specifics on his plans, and show that he is just as deserving to be on that stage. He got his message across and whit I think will stand out for people who may have been undecided was that either may be a good choice to many but ONLY he has the skills set required to bring both sides together and get things done and at the end of the day THAT is really what is important.
On a side note I agree with all who say the longer this goes on the better it is for him. He has always been more successful once people get to see more of him and he did well tonight. I think the burden was actually on her more then him unlike most of the pundits. I think she needed to show that he was just this young inexpereinced guy we cant trust in the white house and I she was not able to do that. He proved his point more then she proved her argument against hers. I dont think people doubt her intellect and skill set it will be overall personality that brings this home.
As far as the crowd goes I dont think it was skewed to her favor, there were quite a number of black celebrities and according to fundrace many of the white celeberties there have donated to Obama or both. I think they showed their opinion like many others that the reason they want them to run together is so they do not have to choose. It isnt going to happen so we should leave the "dream ticket" talk alone, neither would accept the others invitation to be the VP and I agree that would handicap him more then her in either scenerio (Obama/Clinton Clinton/Obama).
...and finally to the poster that asked the question in regard to coting for Hillary if you would have asked that months ago I would have said yes, but after seeing the tru colors albeit ones that weren;t really hidden now that we are looking I will stay home in November if Hillary is the nominee rather then choosing between the lesser of two evils.
2. Can Wolf Blitzer please be banned from hosting another debate for the rest of the campaign? He was hell bent on starting some drama!
3. I loved his answer about Latinos taking jobs away from Black folk. Our community has been feeling the economic crunch way before Latinos came here.
4. Why didn't Wolf bring up Hillary not reading the NIE??
5. Lately, Hillary supporters have been trying to scare folks by saying, "Ya'll better watch out if Obama gets the nom because the Repubs will come after him!". After last night, I think he'll be just fine. Loved his line about the GOP being the last ones to talk about fiscal responsibility.
I have no doubt of his commitment to our causes and issues and he has made many comments to substantiate this view. It does more for me to know that when someone is talking about the well being and future of our kids that he understands the true obstacles and is truly including "OUR" kids.
We have to stop allowing the overseer/master mindest to continue to divide us.
Thankfully, I don't think I'll have to. Obama did a nice job last night. He looked like a guy with the wind at his back.
2. I will not vote for Billary under any circumstance. It is time to make a definitive stand for our community and the Democratic party. It is now or never. If I can't vote Barack Obama for president in November, then I will vote republican or not at all.
3. Someone really needs to add a full pictorial profile of Whoopie Goldberg to the Obama Hater Watch website/list. She sits on the View panel everyday in invisible white face (anyone remember her contribution to the routine where Ted Danson got made up in black face for a show) and castigates Obama every chance she gets from making false claims to saying he doesn't deserve to be the first Black president but Colin Powell does.
The question was asked by a citizen from Minnesota, who has seen the effects of illegal immigration on her community, as if I had the opportunity, would have asked the same question. The question did not come from Wolf Blitzer and Hillary Clinton answered it in a much better view of reality by actually admitting that citizens of this country were losing their jobs because of illegal immigration.
I have to disagree with you regarding the question posed by a citizen who asked a question if I had been given the opportunity as many others, would have asked. That nobody is talking about the consequences of illegal immigration and its affects upon the African American community. Those so-called jobs they are doing because nobody else wants to do them. That's not a lie, that's a damned lie. Most of those jobs are considered working class, which is not what most of the political intellegencia, academics, or middle class are. Its the working class that is taking the full brunt of allowing this to continue to go unchecked, resulting in lost jobs, reduced wages, unemployment, and to a lesser extent the ills of violence, crimes, and other ills that result when people don't have jobs.
Barack Obama stambled and stumbled, looking for an out that did not allow him to answer the question. HE DID NOT ANSWER THE QUESTION. He is so afraid of alienating one group by speaking the truth, that he might have done himself irreparable damage with the African-American community. To her credit, Hillary Clinton did acknowledge that AA and other working class people are being hurt by illegal immigration. It seemed that Obama was pandering, something I had not seen until that moment. He states that anyone bringing up the subject is trying to scapegoat another group, that is patently false, since it is not a perception but a truth that can be backed up by actual facts, it is not anecedotal.
Please stop all these cumbaya sh##, by pretending that if we don't say it out loud, then all will be well with the world. That's the problem nobody is talking about it, and it should be an issued raised at every one of his town hall meetings until he gives a complete cogent answer on how illegal immigration will be stopped and what he will do to
assist the AA community from being the actual scapegoats of somebody else's agenda.
Just take a look at Miami, Florida, it is a microcosm of what will happen in the larger US, if this is not stopped.
Honestly I was leaning towards Hillary Clinton initially b/c of her connections. But any woman who is willing to let some philandering husband steal her thunder on the world stage at the expense of cordial race relations in the U.S. is not someone I want in the White House.
What is she going to do when she has to meet and greet with those from Africa or the Middle East? Let ol' Massa talk for her? They don't like dealing with women anyway (reference Madeline Albright).
We need someone who can lift this country up - not take us back to 1955.
LOL . . .Yeah, Whoopi's been trippin' lately. But, as you alluded to, I rarely look towards her for racial consciousness. Sherri Shephard is of little help as well. That show sees nothing wrong with the Clinton tactics of the past few months. And yes, Hillary is always the victim on that show.
It's a shame when Elizabeth Hasselback turns out to be the voice of reason for racial topics on that show.
- no integrity
- neo-racist, as others have said she pitted Brown against Black. I hope the Latino communities get hip to this.
- no accountability for the vote for war
You all must read this endorsement at http://www.mapa.org called Si se puede! Obama. These brown brothers and sisters left no stone unturned when it comes to calling out the Clintons racism.
I won't vote republican either, but at least they (some of them, not all) don't try to disguise their racism.
That was an exact moment for her to pit us against each other in her effort to win US back!
http://www.politico.com/pdf/PPM44_080130_nd_obama_hrc_healthcare_plan_forces_health_insurance2.pdf
1. I agree with a previous poster, Wolf Blitzter should be banned from moderating future debates. Hate I missed the booing.
2. The email questions sounded more like CNN talking points, especailly the one about Bush/Clinton being on the ballot for 12 consecutive yeaars. No questions about New Orleans or Katrina despite the efforts of ColorofChange.org.
3. Hillary will not admitt she made a mistake in voting for the war which reminds me of Bush.
4. Obama won the immigration debate.
5. Favorite line of the night was Obama saying Hillary would be on anybody's short list for VP.
6. Obama/Clinton 08
When you have lost hope it is hard to believe again. So as the disenfranchised young men you speak of wouldn't vote, it is possibly due to the fact that they don't have any jobs, no prospect of jobs, the educational system has pissed on them and left them out to dry. Now if you were in that situation, would one of the first things on your mind, be to go out in vote for someone who continues to pander and avoid the impact of immigration upon you and your community.
Yes, the Haitians are here in Miami. But my Sister, and you do know this, Haitians will tell a Black American in a hardbeat they are not Black and many wonder what is the signifcance of the MLK Holiday as they don't know why Blacks in this country complain. Yes, the same Haitians had it not been for some Black person somewhere standing up and saying what was happening to them wouldn't be here today to complain about Black Americans.
The Cubans as you well know had a lot of help from our government that would not even give the same help to its own citizens. They brag about how they are the most successful hispanics in America, but if I received, food stamps, housing subsidies, educational grants, social security even though having worked not one day in this country, I would be expected to have made some inroads, considering that an entire society of educated Cubans were transplanted from Cuba to Miam while Blacks were still struggling for their seat at the table. Know your history before you start preaching. If there had been a Black Slave Adjustment Act similar to the Cuban Refugee Adjustment Act which allowed them to receive small business loans and would not give them to Black Americans, a policy that has been in affect longer than any affirmative action law, then tell me again about how the Cubans stick together. They don't have to the government did it for them.
Now, for a current perspective of how Miamians feel about their city and the impact of the Hispanics on the city please read the following post and absorb some truth.
http://pod01.prospero.com/n/pfx/forum.aspx?tsn=71&nav;=messages&webtag;=kr-miamitm&tid;=31684
The rest of Black America, take a look at what has transpired in Miami as a result of unchecked legal and illegal immigration. Do you want this to happen where you live?
Holler!
And if there's ever a reason for me NOT to vote for Obama. there's this:
http://youdecide08.foxnews.com/2008/02/01/moveon-endorses-obama-pledges-to-mobilize-on-feb-5/
My take is before I look to clean anyone elses yard or look for someone else to clean mine i clean my own. We must unite and before you can unite physically you have to unite mentally. Like I said before I am inspired in a way I have never been and I take pride in the opportunity awaiting us where my children will have an image of power success and leadership that looks liek them. We get a black FAMILY something that is too rare to locate on television as an image of love and commitment that I think in this day and age we need. That question yesterday if answered in any different way by him would have been THE soundbyte of the day and would have been the beginning of the end instead her answer is the one getting all of the negative spin. Please do not misunderstand me RACE MATTERS but if you do not modify content and delivery depending on your audience as what good do your words and opinions do if no one is listening.
Again my friend it is like a box ball - you play the game until you get in the box and get to change the rules.
There are third parties...
For me it is a personal and political choice not to vote for Hillary or a Republican. First, I just can't reward race-baiting, among other things.
Second, I believe, like Barack, the power resides in the people. We have the power to let the status quo know that dynasty, race-baiting politics, divisive politics, will not work anymore. See, the only way the status quo remains is by the consent of the people. Yes, we may complain, but if we do not take a risk and act in some manner on that complaint, then we are complicit. What the status quo wants more than anything is to keep people of color separate. Divide and Conquer. You notice there is not much news, if any, about Hillary's scapegoating Latinos for AA job loss. White folk would be up the creek if Brown and Black came together, ain't no way our voices or agendas wouldn't be heard by someone who is Brown or Black or both. That's what they don't want and that is their fear with Obama.
About moveon.org. And Fox news. -- I am not conceding my power to them. I make my decisions based on my knowledge of racial history, the converging stories of people of color in the US, the betrayal of white feminists/organizations to people of color, the disgust of Hillary playing the gender card and the race card (whiteness and fear of "colored unity"). I base my decision on integrity, family values, fidelity, and the desire for leading family that is not tainted and spotted from illicit deals and actions that sucks the life out of our economy, our hope, and our belief in government.
Damn. . . brown and black and yellow and whites w/out money built this country.
I agree that if-and this is a pretty big if-blacks and other minorities had a candidate that exemplified our values and what we wanted, there's no way that candidate could be ignored.
To an extent, I acknowledge that Obama could well be that candidate.
However, with the dangers this country faces externally, and our bitter partisianship internally, this is not the time for that sort of social experiment.
We will die as a country if we rally behind ANY candidate whose goal is to lead this country into the minefield of "change." there is too much at stake.
If that is what you feel in your heart, go for what you know.
This is what I know.
Clintons (and we must look at them together)
1. millions of blacks are already dead from the failure to stop genocide in Rwanda, the failure to treat Haitians humanely
2.divisiveness is the Clinton way to rule and conquer. They have proven they can't/will not work with independents and republicans, Hillary laughed at the idea of talking to our "enemies" around the world, and as I have stated, they continue to fuel race wars within the party, which benefits them because whiteness is so invisible to us.
3. I am not as fearful of "others" who seek to do us harm from abroad as I am of wolves in sheeps' clothing who live within our borders.
At some point you(we) have to stand for change. If not now, when? If not us, who?
I am not voting on fear of change. I welcome it. I pray for it.
I teach African American studies at a university in the south. We were discussing the Matrix and talked about the line where Morpheus says some people are so hopelessly committed to the system that they will do anything in their power to defend it, even people who are harmed by it. Because, I believe, we are a people who suffer from Stockholm syndrome. For hundreds of years our bodies and minds were kidnapped, tortured, and taught to love and respect the system. That same plantation system and mentality resides within so many of us (people of color in general). We are a colonized people. But the plantation offers somes semblance of consistency and well-being. At least we eat, right? At least we have public eduation, right? Even though the system reserves the worst food, the worst grocery stores, the worst schools for us. At least. . . And, we will defend it because we don't know or see any better.
Change is scary. Faith is the substance of things hoped for and the evidence of things not seen. There is no way for us to see the possibilities because we have never been this close to change, at least in this manner, before. I'm sure Nat Turner was afraid, Ida B. Wells was afraid, MLK was afraid, etc. They had no assurance either and were directly confronted with the real possiblity of dying - any day, any time. We are not, at least not by a terrorist, like some would have us to believe.
What this means for me is we have other options. We don't have to remain on the plantation. We don't even have to be sharecroppers anymore. The Clintons want us to be sharecroppers. They want us to owe them more than we make, and to appear as benevolent oversears.
The Republican option is a no-brainer.
The other option (as has been discussed in other threads on this blog) is for the power of the people to say know to the sharecropper. . . we will not work the land for you, stock your fridge, pay you for working the land, and still have to borrow money from you in order to eat. That means I don't vote to support a sharecropping political system. I might write in Obama's name. Does this mean Obama will revolutionize the entire system (Matrix) for us. Probably not. Will his election and presidency moves us closer to a more just society. Yes. I want to move.
What say ye?
BTW, I didn't proofread.:)
Very well said.
Though I'm a McCain supporter. Can't stand the Clintons. :)
Cornel West is on C-Span now.
Talking about Race and the election.
He was one of Obama's earliest supporters. Didn't wait or jump on the Obama ain't a true ng. bandwagon. Watch live online
http://c-span.org/watch/cs_cspan_wm.asp?Cat=TV&Code;=CS
I could not have said it any better myself. Bravo!
Very well said.
I WILL vote. I just won't vote for her.
I will not be complicit in setting into cement a ceiling for Black candidates in the future. For, if she succeeds with her race-baiting, then it will be used on other Black candidates - count on it.
So, no, I'm not going to be complicit in that.
Mandatory Health Insurance Shot Down in CA
This backs up Obama argument that Clinton's mandatory program will penalize people. You must read this article. It discusses possible tax exemptions being taken away, wages garnished, etc.
How guy is really smart. Hillarycare would have failed again.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB120173996744030445.html?mod=opinion_main_commentaries
http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/story?id=4228113&page;=1
What's not true? Who's not fair? About what?
I don't think calling their reasons, most of which seem to hit on the same theme, "any reason", as though people are throwing darts on a 100-Reasons-to-Hate-Hillary dartboard and using whatever talking point it lands on, is very fair or respectful of the intellect of the people you're talking to.
If you read what they're saying, most of it will talk about the idea that the Clinton campaign started race-baiting Obama at least since the IA caucuses if not before and that for many (not all but many) bloggers of color who watch this election closely, those tactics are too Machivellian, too craven, too racist to let any precedent of support for such politics stand. They, from what I gather, do not hate Hillary, are not being irrational and don't worship Obama. (I hope they don't)
What I see are people who feel this is about principle and fairness. They see a white family (The Clintons) privileged even among whites going against a talented man of color and using race-baiting tactics to keep him down and they care less about defeating the Republican than they do about not supporting race-baiting tactics, not now, not ever.
Do I agree? No. I have said that I feel McCain and Romney and Co. will set a worse precedent for the entire nation including us as people of color, then the Clinton campaign. I feel the GOP has not changed to a center-right party that at least believes in responsible tax policy or responsible foreign policy or at least responsible politics. They still are pandering, bottom of the barrel, far-Right ideologues and they have to be stopped.
But, please try to understand where others are coming from.
Hyperbole that insists people unwilling to vote for someone they feel has denigrated them personally by using racially-coded language deliberately and repeatedly are somehow unable to have "an open mind" makes a mockery of itself.
The Clintons have been all up and through black folks communities and churches. I think we know them. The question is, do they know us?
You sound like a sincere supporter, and I wish you well.
Speaking for myself only I'd love to have a conversation as to why I think a lot possible Clinton supporters are swearing them off and dismissing them. I'll do what I can to be civil and respectful and just try to be honest.
First things first, I agree that from what little I know, her staff I believe was the most diverse of any presidential candidate in the major parties. (I don't know about 3rd parties is all) That is, to me, a great thing, if it belies the sort of campaign she would run, the sort of politics in which she would engage.
Secondly, I sincerely agree with you that Hillary Clinton has gotten a LOT of negative press, and very much of it was unearned. People of the left and right hate them in the media and throughout America. This leads to staunch defenders, of course, but it also has to obviously led to negative biases and negative stories in the press. Chris Matthews comes to mind right off the bat.
--->Now, to go on what may be considered a tangent but is actually important to this discussion, I feel that black voters in particular are known, rightly or wrongly, (I do not have exit polls from Clinton's 92 and 96 runs) as historically strong Clinton backers. Historically rock-solid, in fact. With this rock-solid base, I believe, there was supposed to be a sort of unwritten social contract, where black America was at least supposed to feel defended by the Clintons and not attacked.
When Barack Obama came into the race, my suspicion is that contract became a tightrope that the Clinton campaign gave up on when Obama took Iowa. They began with the drug smear and the unfounded implication and accusation that Obama SOLD drugs, and then they moved onto repeating right-wing smears of his name and implying he was a Muslim, wrongly.
I don't have to continue down this path, because not only do I think you know this all already, but there is a wiki already set up on this site that details many of these and other incidents that the Clinton campaign has gone into that culminate in a very distasteful, racially-charged experience that has been almost completely orchestrated and run by the Clinton campaign, while Barack Obama's campaign has tried, unwittingly to follow up with its own attacks and antics, falling in part to the trap set up for them.
This clearly broke the social contract and left many fellow brothers and sisters confused, unable to understand why the "first black president", at what seems now to be the climax of this strategy so far, would dismiss the black voters of South Carolina as mere sheeple.
So to me, when you ask why there are so many black bloggers here that are mad at Bill and Hillary so much (and of course it'll be taken out on Hillary who ostensibly runs her own campaign) that they're promising not to vote for her, I point to the breaking of what seemed a simple promise -- don't insult us. They did, and so a lot of people are done with them.
So, let me try to say this in a way that answers your comment.
It's not that these bloggers haven't tried to understand the Clintons and where they're coming from.
It's more like:
A) The Clintons clearly don't understand black America enough to know that using racial dogwhistle time after time after time were not going to play with black voters who saw a possibly successful black candidate.
B) Black America either knew the Clintons enough to vote for Bill twice, or not enough to know that his Slick Willie tactics could one day reverberate onto one of our own.
I again think it's to our peril ultimately if we are the deciding vote that allows a GOP president for what'll probably be 8 more years, but I must say I find it hard to be sympathetic to the cause of having black voters, who have been repeatedly insulted, demeaned, debased and attacked by the Clinton campaign in this cycle (all in the pursuit of victory), suddenly ignore this slander and vote Hillary.
To be plain, there are immensely, earth-shatteringly many hurt feelings. And that's an important problem for the Clinton team come general election time.
Let me take note of what you said, because I think I was a little ignorant in my first couple replies.
I do not think the Clinton administration was overall "black" by ANY gracious standards about which we look at black America. Bill Clinton was only "black" if we look at blackness through the corrupted lens of negative stereotypes.
Still, like I said, I think personally that the GOP has such a crock of shit crop of candidates that they need to be defeated. I do not like many of Hillary's policy positions and I hated her entire campaign tactic and theme to the core, but I do not want another administration like the one we have now. I do not think you do either.
I believe firmly that John McCain or Mitt Romney would be worse for all of us as people and as Americans than both Clintons combined, though they are far and away not the best choice.
(The best choice is Green Party, but who's counting?)
Maybe I'm believing in a boogeyman or something, but I do not see the Democratic Party and Republican Party as two hands of the same fist, but as two arms of the same body. I believe that if our arm gets stronger than the Right's, we can make some small-scale but still important changes to the body politic and I cannot let that go.
Why? Because he is a leader and not some vague "agent of change?"
I'd like to know what exactly is up with the anti-Republican bias. Is it one or more policy beefs, or is it just a hatred of the current administration?
Cause if its the latter, Bush isn't running again.
Realize that this election is a choice between the reassertment of freedom and democracy as the "last best hope" for this world, and the exchange of that freedom and democracy for vague (in Obama's case) or outrightly socialist (in Clinton's) ideas.
Those who would mortgage what this country could be-a stable, secure, strong model of freedom for those who desire it- for their own self interests or a place in history will ultimately find themselves staring at the barrel of a gun...either from those own special interests or from an outside enemy who wants to destroy us.
None of us turned our backs on the Clintons; the Clintons turned their backs on us. They threw us under the bus, and threw any number of other constituencies under the bus for political expediency. Their strategy is to play the polls tit-for-tat (IRAQ War Vote, ie.), instead of being bold, principled and visionary.
We deserve (and CAN HAVE) better leadership.
Get all you California friends to spread the word and better yet, show up.
"Some people now think that this was a very clear, open-and-shut case. We bombed them for days in 1998 because Saddam Hussein threw out inspectors." - HRC Los Angeles Democratic Debate
Here is the debate text... http://www.iht.com/articles/2008/02/01/america/... you didn't know this was a myth, check out this link... http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=1123</br>
I think having tax cuts that help widen the economic gap and ultimately weaken the economy are bad. I think it should be evident that Reaganomics didn't work well while Reagan was in office and it's not doing so now. Doing so especially in a time of war, when we need revenue for the supplies and tools needed for the troops, that to me is disgusting and McCain 1.0 thought the same thing. Too bad McCain 2.0 "evolved his position" on tax cuts for the wealthy.
I think universal health care is a right of free people that our government has abridged for too long. I don't think "freedom" and "liberty" just mean let corporations run wild on the backs of the people. I think true liberty involves an amount of equity as well, and so unexplained "socialist" fearmongering won't sway me.
Universal health care would provide massive budgetary savings, lowers premium costs, and can allow MORE choice and portability of medical insurance and coverage than current managed care. So, yeah, hate us horrible tax-and-spend liberals who love to save money and expand choice.
I think the pre-emptive warfare has to be something America has to be more careful and honest about, not just jumping into war without a purpose or on false premises. That obviously did not happen with respect to Iraq and I think we need to leave. I do not like that we invaded Iraq, to be civil about it, and I cannot vote for candidates who want to continue the war in Iraq.
This doesn't mean that I hate the troops or that I want terrorists to win. I think we'd have National Guard troops that could be in America, ready to protect us in case of any sort of national emergency if we didn't have this unnecessary war, I think we'd have the troops available to secure Afghanistan and attack Osama bin Laden along the Afghanistan-Pakistan border if we were not engaged in this war, and I think our nation would have more soft power within the Middle East were we not so stubbornly refusing to consider leaving Iraq.
Lastly, the politics of the Republican Party are at least equally disdainful, in my mind, as that of Hillary Clinton. The GOP seems to have no problem with fearmongering, (If you don't support me, then the country will be attacked again sort of rhetoric for one) nor identity smearing. (Barack HUSSEIN Obama, the madrassa story, calling Hillary the "bitch", John Edwards the "faggot", etc.)
There's more reasons to despise the current crop of GOP candidates and the party, but I wanted just to give you the first few things that came to my mind about this corporatist, fascist, pandering, hateful ideologues that call themselves leaders.
Great answer.
I for one am exhausted from enduring the insulting paternalistic interrogations on this and other comment posts. No other constituency is talked down to as black folk regarding their voting decisions.
I have had many political discussions with buddies to try to win them over. Of all the tactics at my disposal, condescension would be the last thing to try.
We know about Clinton; we know about Obama. We definitely know about the republicans. The average reader of this blog is a political junkie.
Please keep this in mind the next time you click "post" whose ostensible intent is to convince some of us to reconsider voting Clinton or (for some of us) to make the unappealing choice to go McCain.
As a McCain supporter, I'm not here to try to get anyone to consider voting for him. My opinion is that most people who read/post here would flat out not vote for McCain, or would only vote for him to vote against Clinton (in which case, to me, they're wasting their vote). I post to get people to see what more is at stake in this election, and what I think their votes could mean for this country.
Cab,
Couple of points:
1. Republicans did not give Obama his middle name. It may seem stupid in this forum, but I assure you that to a segment of the American electorate, his name and his history raise concerns.
2. Nowhere in the Constitution is health care listed as a "right" of any American. I have no problem with reforming the current health care system, but let's also address issues such as chronic disease, instead of just demanding the government-or namely, you and I-pay for people who haven't been held to a level of responsibility with their health.
3. If we leave Iraq as a broken, torn country, we consign ourselves to defeat. Which means the terrorists win. Whether we should have invaded or not is a discussion which will not be finished until long after we're dead. But understand that removing our troops before their mission is complete-a mission which was validated by the confirmation votes for GEN Petraeus-is inexplicably tied to our defeat in Iraq, and possibly in the War on Terror as a whole.
Once upon a time, I was willing to hold my nose and vote for Hillary.
No more.
From the beginning, her sense of entitlement reeked and pissed me off. She is NOT entitled to be President of the United States because she let that man humiliate her on a worldwide stage. She's not.
And while, she reeked of the condescention towards Obama with the air of ' Who the hell does this Uppity Nigger think he is?', it was only something other Uppity Niggers like myself would notice. We know all the signs of disrespect.
The moment it crossed the line to the point where I'd NEVER vote for her, was when she began her plan of RACE-BAITING Barack Obama.
It began with Billy Shaheen, and just check with the Clinton Attacks Obama Wiki Incident Page that is linked on the left.
Let me make this as plain as possible for you.
The MOMENT they chose to actively try and racebait Obama, it became BEYOND Obama.
If she is allowed to racebait her way into the Democratic Nomination, then the plan will be set in stone for ANY future Black politician.
I'm Black first, and any political party next. I will NOT be an active participant in helping set the blueprint to handicap future Black politicans. I'm not like those Hispanics in Nevada, that AFTER she attempted to DISENFRANCHISE THEM, they STILL voted for her. No Uncle Ruckus here.
The dismissiveness towards Black folk; the absolute insulting towards my Brothers and Sisters in South Carolina; the arrogance in the ' well, you don't have anywhere else to go', combine them all, and it adds up to me NEVER voting for her. I'm not shuffling back to the Clinton Plantation.
EVER.
very interesting.
but..but....but....the 'Progressives' told me that Massa Bill and Miss Hillary didn't do nuthin'. They didn't offend ' nobody'....so, why's he creeping in the churches?
Uh huh.
It was all in our ' imagination'.
LOL, that's what I was thinking: Well if they didn't do nothin, why are they apologizing?
And Clinton was trying to stir up more mess at the debate trying to pit black against brown with her little anecdote about some black guy in GA complaining about latino immigrants taking jobs (a.k.a. Clinton throwing latinos under that campaign bus). I'm glad Obama responded about not scapegoating.
Bill Clinton To Go On "Mea Culpa Tour" Of Black Churches
By Eric Kleefeld - February 2, 2008, 3:07PM
The Clinton campaign apparently understands that they need to shore up some African-American support after Bill Clinton's aggressive campaign rhetoric against Barack Obama in South Carolina — Bill is set to go on a tour of black churches in Los Angeles tomorrow, CNN reports.
"They need to go touch the people like they did before. The bickering they got in in South Carolina must be put aside," said an unnamed elected official who will accompany Bill on the trip, and who described it as a "mea culpa tour." "Bill is going to have to come back among those who loved him and he did so much for. He is going to have to do it – I can't do it for him – and face the voters."'
1. Just as fellow Republicans did not give Sen. McCain his age, but voters worry about that, too. Is that fair? I don't think it is. Maybe my mind will change as the general election approaches and I become more partisan, that's entirely possible, but right now, making such characteristics into political issues is still objectionable politics, like the "illegitimate brown baby" robocalls in the 2000 GOP primary.
2. You're right, I'm wrong on that one. I had thought the US had ratified the UDHR's Covenant of Economic, Social and Cultural Rights. It's about on par with individual ownership of firearms -- not a right but a privilege. So I accept that it is not a right, though I think we SHOULD then ratify the Covenant of Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, and we have to ensure that every citizen has an opportunity to be healthy by providing health insurance to all. We provide health coverage to prisoners, we should at least give the same *privileges* to the rest of the citizenry.
3. Accepting that the Iraq War is a part of the War on Terror is misleading. It was not until we invaded and attracted more people against our country. Staying there has festered more violence around the world. Will groups like Al Qaeda and HAMAS still wish for our downfall? Yes. Do we have to give them ammunition by perpetually occupying Arab lands? No.
I also do not think we should set a precedent that a president can lie the nation into a war with doomsday rhetoric and then afterward say the problem the invasion started needs to be damped down, thusly we need to continue the war based on lies in the first place. Does that make sense? I do not want this sort of war happening again and if we continue to sanction it by allowing permanent bases and occupation and accepting the entire conflict as necessary, we'll be setting just such a precedent. That precedent is MUCH more harmful for us, encouraging perpetual offensive warfare, than withdrawal is, at this point. Either way, we've helped al Qaeda regain strength, either we continue to help them regain strength or we don't. I say we don't.
On another point, the idea that because a debate over the way we went into the war will be long means it shouldn't be a factor now is off-base. Why we bombed Iraqi villages and cities, busted down their doors and searched their homes, deposed not only their dictator and his corrupt family members but also many influential people who happened to be a part of his party, (the only one allowed to participate I believe) etc. is important. It's important to us as the people funding and sanctioning this war and it's important to the Iraqi people and to the countries in the region who have to take in refugees, spend many resources to secure their borders and plan to grapple either with a vacuum of power or a U.S. pawn complicit in further American aggression. They need to believe that these consequences are undertaken because the mission we are taking in Iraq is noble, and not that it's the latest reason given by an incompetent administration that wanted war before it knew what that meant.
We can't just sweep the way we went in under the rug, well maybe we can here because it feels better that way, but it goes toward credibility, integrity, soft power, the ability to affect positive change in other nations without aggressive means and thusly the ability to effectively fight terrorism on multiple fronts with allies of all different types. If we don't have credible reasons for attacking nations pre-emptively, then when we say we want to fight terrorism and we equate this war with terror, people don't believe us and they shouldn't.
1. McCain's age concerns me. But I still think that he is the best qualified to lead this country, just as you feel Obama is, regardless of his name. To us, BOTH of these arguments are stupid...but they can't be discounted.
2. The individual right to bear arms IS specifically listed in the Constitution.
3. The US is not in Iraq as an occupying power. Iraq has a democratically elected government. Our military is there to serve as a security solution until the country, its government and its military are able to sustain and secure their country.
Yes, we screwed up the peace. We screwed up de-Baathification. We made mistakes. We violated one of Sun Tzu's tenets in The Art of War: never wake up with more enemies that you had the previous day. Mistakes were made in Iraq, just like they've been made in EVERY previous military action that this country's undertaken.
But at the end of the day, regardless of how and why radical islamists and terrorists got to Iraq, they are there. And their sworn mission-hell, their only reason for existence; what they PRAY for-is to destroy this country and our way of life. That's not fearmongering, that's THEIR doctrine.
And we can choose to fight them house to house in Iraq, and wherever else they appear...or we can slug it out with them in our country. While we'll win in either location, I refuse to vote for ANY candidate-be they a democrat or Republican-that would take the risk of radical islam establishing a foothold in this country. I didn't serve my country in this war to let that happen, and I refuse to let anyone else to.
If we cut and run in Iraq, we grant creedence to what bin Laden said after the battle of Mogadishu in 1993 (I'm watching Black Hawk Down right now): we become the "paper tiger," unwilling to finish the job and stay for the long haul.
Do we need a permanent base in Iraq? That is a strategic decision to be made by the President and his military leadership, and NOT by the latest poll.
A question for you (and anyone else who wants to pipe in): I could've sworn I heard that Obama would go into Pakistan unilaterally if he knew bin Laden was there. Does this sort of preemptive unilateralism-essentially, the Bush Doctrine in black skin-become valid when YOUR candidate supports it?
Listen to the song, kneel before your God, and pray that we are no longer slaves.
What's most important to me - at least for the future of our people and political power- is that the establishment know that they cannot ever take our votes for granted again.
No more auction block.