-
Website
http://www.jackandjillpolitics.com/ -
Original page
http://www.jackandjillpolitics.com/2008/03/wapo-on-color-of-change-vs-rep-stephanie-tubbs-jones-and-the-cbc/ -
Subscribe
All Comments -
Community
-
-
Top Commenters
-
Popular Threads
I wrote about it back in January:
http://reachblack.blogspot.com/2008/01/losing-my-religion.html
That said, Stephanie Tubbs-Jones is a disgrace. Not because she supports the Clintons, because she's essentially told her own local constituents to go da hell in the face of their own votes (should they vote overwhelmingly) for Obama.
How can it possibly be in the best interests of your constituents to work to disenfranchise them and thwart their democratic will?
So what far too many of the CBC members are saying is "better you silly negros don't vote at all than you vote differently than my self interests." I can only hope that there will be a groundswell of new political leadership that rises up against these crabs in a barrell. Yeesh.
Votes from a key precinct or two won't be counted till Wednesday morning. In the basement of a party office.
Go figure.
Expect Clinton to win in Ohio by at least 10 points. The party machine is all for Hillary in Ohio.
If Obama can keep it within 10 points, it will be a victory for him. But that sure as hell isn't how it will be reported.
Because, well, you know, there's no such thing as voter suppression in America.
Let's put our cards on the table....You think that black politicians should support Obama and those that don't should be subjected to some sort of black politcal litmus test that noone else is being subjected to. That they should be voted out of office because they happen to support a different member of the same party during the primary is more than a little short-sighted. I would call it Coulter-esque.
I love this site and as a black man, I'm as excited about this camapaign season as anyone. For the record, I have no love for the Clintons and am just as alarmed as you all are at some of their tactics during the campaign. But I also recognize that they have a long and rich history with the black community and that's not going away just because of Obama-mania. These strong-armed tactics is the sort of stuff that Barack railing against in the first place.
may vote them out of office. This is
an AA site so we are more concerned
with the AA vote
It's one thing to be a sore loser, it's another thing to be so willing to divide a party and ignore the will of the people. If it were just Republicans doing this I think I could easily dismiss it as politics as usual but it's not and so it really makes no sense at all.
What do these CBC members owe the Clintons that causes them to ignore their own constituency???
Darth, if this is true then you should understand why black politicians are catching so much criticism. For the CBS to stand by with a campaign that has race baited and is looking to disenfranchise black people is unforgiveable.
Yes,
Maybe people should consider this when they're voting tomorrow. Obama is right for this election. Many of the elder black leaders say, "Don't worry, Barack will be President some day." This shows they have no understanding of Presidential politics, and think it works like getting to Congress did for them (waiting around until the senior politician retired). Point blank: Obama either wins this year, or he'll never be President. People like Tubbs-Jones should think about that. They may be standing in the way of history.
Let the process play out. We're acting as if Barack is McCain and Hillary is Huckabee and the race is over. There is about 100 to 125 point difference in delegates. If she gets a split tomorrow (which she probably will), she's earned the right to stay in the race. Neither is going to get 2025 before Denver. So let's let things play out before we start breaking arms Sopranos style?
You said, "Elected officials aren't always in lock step with what their constituents think." You also speak of an "honest vote of conscience."
That's exactly the problem. Elected officials are supposed to represent their constituents. Sure, an official can and often must use his or her conscience. But they should also be willing to accept the consequences of their actions.
For example, 70% of the U.S. wants to get out of Iraq. But Bush would rather act on "conscience," and ignore the people. Now, is he right to do this?
The Republican Congress ignored their constituencies on matters of government spending, transparency and a host of other issues. They too acted on "conscience." And guess what . . . the voters kicked their butts out of office.
It's one thing to go against the grain when your constituents are ambivalent. But that's not the case here. When you've got 85-90% of your district voting for candidate X my guess is that they're trying to tell you something.
In essence, this overwhelming support for Obama speaks to more than just a symbol of racial pride. Indeed, the overwhelming support for Obama can be viewed as an equally overwhelming REJECTION HIllary Clinton; a rejection of her campaign's divisive politics and race-baiting. Some black officials are clearly ignoring their constituents.
The voters decide how important a given issue is. Whether it be the economy, health care or, yes, even presidential candidates, voters have every right to hold their representatives accountable.
A constituency could vote a representative out of office for just about any reason they want to.
What happens if a representative from a pro-choice district votes to confirm a pro-life judicial nominee? They risk being voted OUT of office.
What happens if a representative from a Jewish district votes to support anti-Israel policy? He risks getting voted OUT of office.
I agree, these superdelegates can back whomever they wish. And if the white liberals in MA want to have a revolution over Kerry, Patrick and Kennedy, then so be it. But that's their job to hold their elected officials accountable to them. My guess is that they would be upset IF they felt it was an issue to get upset about. Perhaps they're just as happy with either candidate. Do you think Obama's negatives are as high as Hillary's are in many of these black districts throughout the U.S.?
Personally, I'd much rather take the Bill Richardson approach wherein the superdelegates ratify whomever has the lead in pledged delegates.
You said, "Let the process play out. We're acting as if Barack is McCain and Hillary is Huckabee and the race is over. There is about 100 to 125 point difference in delegates. If she gets a split tomorrow (which she probably will), she's earned the right to stay in the race."
Respectfully, this is NOT close. Actually, Hillary is down by 162 delegates.
This is NOT the Republican primary. I really can't stand it when people want to pretend like this is close (btw, this is not a dig at you).
The Republicans have a winner-take-all system in their primaries. The Democrats have a proportional system. Hillary can spin the perceptions game all she wants. She can come out after winning OH by 3% and call herself the comeback kid. But she cannot ignore the MATH. And the math says she has to do more than just win tomorrow. She HAS TO WIN BIG!!! She's got to get wins by 20% or more in BOTH states just to even think of making up that delegate deficit. And every race she doesn't do this, those numbers get higher and higher.
John Edwards didn't have to drop out when he did. Neither did Dodd, Biden, Giuliani or Romney. But they did decide to drop out because the math was not in their favor. And rather than run a scorched earth campaign; rather than smear their fellow party member and GIVE the other party more ammo for November, they decided to drop out for the good of the party.
This really irks me. She should not be allowed to move the goal posts like she does. But I've already gone on my rant about this. LOL! http://reachblack.blogspot.com/2008/03/my-rant-... any type of monumental shift, Hillary had better come forth with an actual, mathematically plausible, game plan that shows how she can win this thing without:
1. Using super delegates to reverse the will of the people (i.e., reversing whomever has the lead in pledged delegates); and
2. Re-instating MI and FL after the Party specifically said that those two states would NOT COUNT.
Anything short of that, and Hillary is just staying in this for pride and she risks dividing the party and destroying its chances to win in November. But maybe she'd wants to do this (e.g., Gore in 2000 and Kerry in 2004).
What does that sound like?
How can it possibly be in the best interests of your constituents to work to disenfranchise them and thwart their democratic will?
Now THAT'S the truth, ruth.
I'll be honest, superdelegates are superdelegates for a reason -- they are not supposed to vote as their constituents have voted, it was supposed to be personal and political. HOWEVER, that's a two way street. If your constituents don't like the way you vote, you're still free to vote your conscious/your pocketbook/your political chits -- and your constituents are then free to vote your butt out. Freedom of choice is a lovely thing.
I wonder how Ohioans feel about being represented by Stephanie?
and what's the word from New Yorkers about what Rangel is doing to correct what went down in Harlem with folks votes disappearing?
@b-serious, when you gonna get your blog, man? or your official guest commentary designation? you are good.
@darth marc, it'd be great for the process to play out if the Clintons and their supporters weren't so happy to ensure voter disenfranchisement which benefits their candidate. and it's true about the Clintons changing goalposts, while accusing other folks of doing the exact same dirty they themselves are engaging in (aka innoculation).
I'm so glad you asked! I do have a blog. Actually, I've had a blog since January. You can just click on my name or visit the url below.
Feel free to visit me:
http://reachblack.blogspot.com
It gets kinda lonely over there. LOL! But you can check out my posts dating back to mid-late January, 2008.
So, I agree that if they were really upset about Kerry and Kennedy supporting Obama, you best believe that they'd be raising hell about it by now...
All I know is...if Obama had lost 11 races in a row, folks would be blowin' taps, right about now...
By the way, 125 delegate lead is *almost* insurmountable. To win, Hillary Clinton will have to win every remaining state--including Texas, Ohio, Wyoming, Mississippi, Rhode Island and Vermont--with 60%+ of the vote. Sorry, that's not going to happen. If the Super Delegates like Tubbs-Jones void the will of the people and install Hillary Clinton as the nominee, we will not only lose the White House, we will lose our majorities in Congress too. That's reality.
It's true that Hillary would have to win 70 percent of the remaining delegates to pass Obama. Which is why we should let this play out. As you can see the elders are already can skittish about this race and the last thing they want is a floor fight. Better to let nature run its course (i.e. Obama continuing to take Hillary's lunch money and kick sand in Bill's face) than run roughshod on Black congressmen who made chose the wrong side. It enables them to save face and avoid any bitter feelings. Remember, whoever wins is going to have to work with this congress and the last thing you want is what you had in 1992-94. People tend to forget that the Clintons had a very tense relationship with the Democratic in Congress. Part of that was a result of Hillary's failed Health Care bill and the hardball she played with anyone who crossed her.
Personally, I've never understood Black America's love of the Clintons. Anyone who was surprised that they played the race card hasn't been paying attention the last 16 years (remember Sister Souljah?). They've always played a bareknuckled, no-holds barred brand of politics that resembled Bush/Atwater rather than Kennedy/Humphrey. We've just never paid attention to it because they were on "our side". Winning is the only thing that matters to them. Collateral damage is irrelevant.
And I've always been offended by the "first black president" foolishness. Toni Morrison really pissed me off when she coined that phrase for him.
That being said. A choice between a Clinton or McCain is no choice at all. Getting a democrat in the white house has to take precedence. A unified house has to be the first order of business.
Let's hope Barack can finish off soon and make all this talk moot.
They better look at what happened to Al Wynn when he decided he knew what was "best" for his district.
John Lewis is listening to his district, which is what we would expect from a responsible member of the CBC.
Let's see how many challenges we can facilitate in the next two years and see what happens.