Racial Tensions Roil Democratic Race
A series of comments from Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, her husband and her supporters are spurring a racial backlash and adding a divisive edge to the presidential primary as the candidates head south to heavily African-American South Carolina.
The comments, which ranged from the New York senator appearing to diminish the role of Martin Luther King Jr. in the civil rights movement - an aide later said she misspoke - to Bill Clinton dismissing Sen. Barack Obama's image in the media as a "fairy tale" - generated outrage on black radio, black blogs and cable television. And now they've drawn the attention of prominent African-American politicians.
"A cross-section of voters are alarmed at the tenor of some of these statements," said Obama spokeswoman Candice Tolliver, who said that Clinton would have to decide whether she owed anyone an apology.
"There's a groundswell of reaction to these comments - and not just these latest comments but really a pattern, or a series of comments that we've heard for several months," she said. "Folks are beginning to wonder: Is this really an isolated situation, or is there something bigger behind all of this?"
Clinton supporters responded to that suggestion with their own outrage.
"To say that there is a pattern of racist comments coming out of the Hillary campaign is ridiculous," said Ohio Rep. Stephanie Tubbs Jones. "All of the world knows the commitment of President Clinton and Sen. Clinton to civil rights issues - and not only the commitment in terms of words but in terms of deeds."
Referring to the King quote, Sheila Jackson Lee, another Clinton supporter, said Clinton was trying to contrast King and Obama, not to diminish King: "It really is a question of focusing on the suggestion that you can inspire without deeds - what is well-known to the child who studies Dr. King in school is that yes, he spoke, but he also moved people to action."
But other black Clinton supporters found themselves wincing at the Clintons' words, if not questioning their intent.
A Harlem-based consultant to the Clinton campaign, Bill Lynch, called the former president's comments "a mistake" and said his own phone had been ringing with friends around the country voicing their concern.
"I've been concerned about some of those comments - and that there might be a backlash," he said.
Illinois State Senate President Emil Jones, a prominent Obama supporter, echoed those sentiments.
"It's very unfortunate that the president would make a statement like that," he said of Bill Clinton's criticism of Obama's experience, adding that the African-American community had "saved his presidency" after the Monica Lewinsky scandal.
"They owe the African-American community - not the reverse," he said. "Maybe Hillary and Bill should get behind Sen. Barack Obama."
Rep. Jesse Jackson Jr., through a spokesman, used even stronger language. "Following Barack Obama's victory in Iowa and historic voter turnout in New Hampshire, the cynics unfortunately have stepped up their efforts to decry his uplifting message of hope and fundamental change.
"Regrettably, they have resorted to distasteful and condescending language that appeals to our fears rather than our hopes. I sincerely hope that they'll turn away from such reactionary, disparaging rhetoric."
Many analysts think Clinton won New Hampshire on the back of a feminist backlash against criticism from her rivals and the media, and now, after his own defeat, it's Obama's turn. Race is particularly complicated turf this year, however, in a contest that features two towering figures who pride themselves for breaking racial barriers in American politics.
The first is Bill Clinton, sometimes referred to as "the first black president," who now finds himself on the same uncertain ground as any other white politician speaking dismissively of an African-American rival.
He was expected to call in to the Rev. Al Sharpton's radio show, which airs in South Carolina, Friday afternoon, to explain his "fairy tale" comment.
And the second is Obama, whose 1995 book - subtitled "A story of race and inheritance" - was hailed as one of the most astute examinations of race in America. He has played the question of race with remarkable dexterity in this campaign, leaving little doubt among African-Americans that he's a member of their community, while delivering a message that excludes no one. To whites, he's made clear that he's a bearer of racial redemption, not racial grievance, even extending public absolution during a televised debate to a rival, Sen. Joe Biden, for past racially charged remarks. Tolliver said Obama had no personal reaction to Clinton's remarks and was focused on his own message of "hope." But he's spoken in the past of the risk of falling into old narratives of racial division.
"I think America is still caught in a little bit of a time warp: The narrative of black politics is still shaped by the '60s and black power," he told Newsweek this summer. "That is not, I think, how most black voters are thinking. I don't think that's how most white voters are thinking. I think that people are thinking about how to find a job, how to fill up the gas tank, how to send their kids to college. I find that when I talk about those issues, both blacks and whites respond well."
Now, though, some of those old patterns are reasserting themselves.
The series of comments Clinton critics' cite began in mid-December, when the chairman of Hillary Clinton's New Hampshire campaign, Bill Shaheen, speculated about whether Obama had ever dealt drugs. In the final days of the New Hampshire campaign, however, the discomfort of some black observers intensified as Bill Clinton dismissed the contrast between Obama's judgment on the war and Clinton's as a "fairy tale" and spoke dismissively of his short time in the Senate. And the candidate herself, in an interview with Fox News, stressed the role of President Lyndon Johnson, over Martin Luther King Jr., in the civil rights movement.
"I would point to the fact that Dr. King's dream began to be realized when President Lyndon Johnson passed the Civil Rights Act of 1964, when he was able to get through Congress something that President Kennedy was hopeful to do, the president before had not even tried, but it took a president to get it done," she said, in response to a question about how her dismissive attitude toward Obama's "false hopes" would have applied to the civil rights movement. "That dream became a reality, the power of that dream became real in people's lives because we had a president who said we are going to do it and actually got it accomplished."
An aide later said Clinton didn't intend to diminish King, and later that day she went out of her way to stress his accomplishment and courage in leading a movement.
Then, when Obama lost New Hampshire, the first question on black media outlets like "The Tom Joyner Show" was whether white racism had defeated him, and when a Clinton supporter, New York Attorney General Andrew Cuomo, said - though not directly in connection to Obama - that politicians can't "shuck and jive" in early-primary states, it only added fuel to the fire.
Thursday, a key player in black South Carolina politics, Rep. Jim Clyburn, told The New York Times he'd consider endorsing Obama in response to what he considered a lack of respect in the Clinton campaign's approach to Obama.
"For him to go after Obama, using a 'fairy tale,' calling him as he did last week, it's an insult. And I will tell you, as an African-American, I find his tone and his words to be very depressing," Donna Brazile, a longtime Clinton ally who is neutral in this race, said on CNN earlier this week.
Asked in an e-mail from Politico about the situation Friday, she responded by sending over links to five cases in which the Clintons and their surrogates talked about Obama, along with a question: "Is Clinton using a race-baiting strategy against Obama?"
Brazile later said she wasn't intending to raise the question herself, just to pass on a question that was being asked by others.
The black blogosphere was even less diplomatic, with the widely read site MediaTakeOut calling Clinton's comment on King "explosive" and the blog Jack and Jill Politics saying it "pretty much solidified the image that, whatever happened in the '90s, you are now some out-of-touch rich white folks."
"There's a concern about that kind of stuff - especially in the black community," said Bill Perkins, a New York state senator who is among Obama's leading supporters in Clinton's home state. "The dynamic changed in New Hampshire, and all these little mistakes contribute to the general sense that this isn't a mistake."
Clinton's supporters dismiss the hubbub as the Obama campaign's strategy to woo African-American supporters in South Carolina.
"Some of the Obama people are clearly trying to use Hillary's comments about Martin Luther King and distort them into something she did not say, which is outrageous," said former Pennsylvania Rep. William Gray. "It's a hot issue in South Carolina, and they're spreading the word all over. I hope that the good senator will make sure that none of his people are doing that. We don't need to have a debate about race or gender."
Obama's national spokesman, Bill Burton, wouldn't comment on Gray's assertion.
"Voters have to decide for themselves what they think about those comments," he said.
Clinton's campaign also released a statement from a deputy campaign manager, Bob Nash, defending the senator.
"The stress of the political season can lead people to say outlandish things, and we assume that this was the case here. With Dr. King's birthday upon us, it's important to keep in mind that his legacy is about the things that bring us together as one people," he said.
But Lynch, the Clinton consultant who is advising Clinton's South Carolina campaign, said he wouldn't advise Clinton to fight on this terrain.
"The more you kind of defend it, the worse it gets," said Lynch.
© 2007 THE POLITICO
Twitter
StumbleUpon
Facebook
Delicious
Digg
Newsvine
Google
Yahoo
Technorati
74 Comments so far
Show AllCheck out who funds Politico.com.
Allbritton Communications - Allbritton Bank
I'm very late to this thread, but will add this well written article that proves quite well that the Clinton's are racists, http://www.counterpunch.org/reed01142008.html
Obama is no El-Farouk Khaki - which is a shame. I would like to see Khaki as President of the United States over both Clinton and Obama:
In 1993, he founded Salaam, the first queer Muslim group in Canada and second in the world. In 2003, he organized the first female-led, mixed-gender Muslim congregational prayers in Canada for the Salaam/Al-Fateha International Conference, and in 2005, organized the first such prayers anywhere to be held in a mosque, and he has been involved in every such public event in Canada since. Among other involvements, he has served on the Toronto Mayor's Committee on Community & Race Relations, on the board of The 519 Community Centre, and is now elected chair of Africans in Partnership Against AIDS.
Khaki regularly speaks publicly at events and in news media on issues ranging from refugee protection, to the global AIDS crisis, Canadian multiculturalism, racism, persecution of sexual minorities around the world, and religious and racial profiling in the war on terror, among other topics.
(wikipedia)
But if we can't have Khaki or King or Mandela, there is, at least, Edwards!
Ah yes tailcap, another irreverent, relevent classic.
By the way, which one's Pink? LOL
Yes, yes, we all need a life, but none of us should take it too seriously, as none of us are going to get out of it alive.
Hey now seems to have struck a nerve in my brain. I woke up thinking about hey you this morning. I guess he's right, I do need a life! He/She's stuck in my mind, like a fly in ointment. I too have a song (by Pink Floyd) that keeps buzzing around in my head, it's called "Hey You". So, here's to you hey now:
Hey You
Hey you, out there in the cold
Getting lonely, getting old
Can you feel me?
Hey you, standing in the aisles
With itchy feet and fading smiles
Can you feel me?
Hey you, dont help them to bury the light
Don't give in without a fight.
Hey you, out there on your own
Sitting naked by the phone
Would you touch me?
Hey you, with you ear against the wall
Waiting for someone to call out
Would you touch me?
Hey you, would you help me to carry the stone?
Open your heart, I'm coming home.
But it was only fantasy.
The wall was too high,
As you can see.
No matter how he tried,
He could not break free.
And the worms ate into his brain.
Hey you, standing in the road
always doing what you're told,
Can you help me?
Hey you, out there beyond the wall,
Breaking bottles in the hall,
Can you help me?
Hey you, don't tell me there's no hope at all
Together we stand, divided we fall.
Don't give in without a fight.
Hey you,
Out there on your own,
Sitting naked by the phone,
Would you touch me?
Hey you,
With your ear against the wall,
Waiting for someone to call out,
Would you touch me?
Hey you,
Would you help me to carry the stone?
Open your heart, I'm coming home.
[these lyrics are found on http://www.songlyrics.com]
But it was only fantasy.
The wall was too high, as you can see.
No matter how he tried he could not break free.
And the worms ate into his brain.
Hey you,
Out there on the road,
Always doing what you're told,
Can you help me?
Hey you,
Out there beyond the wall,
Breaking bottles in the hall,
Can you help me?
Hey you,
Don't tell me there's no hope at all.
Together we stand, divided we fall.
Ezeflyer, I listened to the interview of Noam Chomsky by Charley Rose. It is a dated interview but interesting. Charlie Rose wasted an enormous amount of time by over-speaking Noam Chomsky, constant interruptions as Chomsky was attempting to make a point, and poor questions. Chomsky was unable to speak about his then new book regarding American Hegemony. Rose can sometimes be the pits. Rose hasn't changed much since then.
One more thing:
Politico is supposed to be some alternative news and commentary source
and all we get is the same old dichotomy. No real depth, just regurgitated
hearsay. The New Hampshire primary "turn around" is a result of feminism and race? Are all these journalists out of the same fold? Why the hell do they all repeat the same narrative?
I said this a few days ago and I will say it again,
CORN.
CORN.
CORN, Doesn't grow in New Hampshire.
IOWA CORN! Midwest is pleased with Obama's support of the corn industry.
Politico is just pandering the mainstream line. Oh, it's race and gender. Okay, golly.
Too bad Smith over at Politico didn't take the time to read Glen Ford's take on Clinton and Obama
Unlike Smith, Ford doesn't use the term "fairy tale" outside of its sentence structure.
Ford doesn't play nice with either Obama or Clinton, but he doesn't fall for the BS either.
People need to get a good feel on this whole thing, read Blackagendareport.com.
Glen Ford is about as progressive of a voice you're going to find. And the man is articulate.
Link for those looking for more insight:
http://www.blackagendareport.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=491&Itemid=1
ps. He shows Obama removed his "anti-Iraq war" statement not in 2004, as it is commonly
cited, but in 2003 when -as Glen Ford charges- the national sentiment was pro-war.
I've changed my mind.
RE: - Whatever that means, am I too 'white?' Some would say so.
If you can use the phrases "sun tan" and "sun burn" interchangeably, then you are too white.
For those of you voting for Obama, would you still support him if he was white?
For those of you voting for Clinton, would you still support her if she was male?
I voted for Glen Murray for Mayor, not because he is gay, but because I liked his policies better than Peter Kaufmann's. Sadly, Glen Murray did not perform up to standard. I voted for Dan Vandal for mayor, not because he is Metis, but because he was much much better than anyone running. Sadly we got Katz. I hate Katz.
RE: - As if to be white means that you're anti-worker, anti-environment, anti-woman, anti-black, etc.
In some cases it does, and in some cases it doesn't. Not all of those involved in the Civil Rights movement were black. Shirley Douglas was kicked out of the United States and told never to come back because she was involved in the Civil Rights movement.
Not all women who run for office are for women's rights and not all men running for office are against them.
RE: - Edwards was second in Iowa and third in NH and no one is saying a word about him not even the so called liberal press.
His name is mentioned here and there, but not much. Note that his picture is more prominent in the advertisement for the January 21 debate than for the debate at the end of the month.
Strange how the Obama and Clinton supporters are bashing each other, but neither has much to say about Edwards (which is the closest thing to Kucinich you are going to get in this race).
RE: - if you think that hillary planted that idiotic "iron my shirt" sign, think back to the last time you demonstrated against the war and someone came by and yelled out: "get a job!"
I think that, because I am jaded, but I still agree with you that some of the attacks on Hillary are over the top. But that is to be expected a bit, die hard Obama and Clinton supporters are going to fight the election even when they use use the public rest room.
Each should take it as a compliment that their opponent considers them a threat. Both are very tight lipped about Edwards. They only refer to him indirectly by saying that the race is between Clinton and Obama.
RE: - He wants to play poker with the health insurance companies and big business fatcats.
Mouseland all over again! Now who should us mice vote for!
What Obama said was that the drug companies and health insurance companies are not going to get all the seats at the table. But still he is reserving seat for them.
While the Republicans talk about the Corporations as being the Saviors of America (which is why they deserve more tax breaks than the rest of us), Edwards is pointing to drug, health insurance and oil corporations and being the obstacles to the America we all want. Edwards says that one will have to fight tooth and nail with them to gain anything and that he has fought them and won.
Why bring health insurance companies to the table if your ultimate goal is to put them out of business - what is there to negotiate if your goals and values are completely at odds with each other! You want to put them out of business and they want to stay in business.
And oil companies are, of course, going to be against Kyoto and they even seem to be pressuring Bush into overturning California's law that would require cars sold in California to be more energy efficient. Note that if the California law wins the court challenge, a number of smaller States and Provinces with smaller populations are waiting in the wings to enact similar laws.
Edwards spoke out for bringing home combat troops and not becoming involved in any more combat missions. To me that means that he is not against using the American Military for legitimate purposes such as Peace Keeping and Disaster relief.
is it accidental that the msmutt comment was counting down my edit time when i came online just now?
Obama is mixed race. Just like Hilary is mixed race. Just like all Americans are mixed race.
You keep playing the race card and you keep finding out how truly ignorant society continues to be.
The smoke screen is truly nauseating and only meant to make others money. Just make sure you don't fall into the "switch voter" category.
Do you think they'll produce a half-black candidate in England anytime soon?
Charlie Rose interviews Noam Chomsky:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fo8InhwKIIQ&feature=related
It's always ALL about race.
The US has reached the point where Obama--or another African origin candidate--would only be elected so that when the US is finally flushed in the Toilet of History the mean-spirited gringos can claim it was all the fault of a BLACK PERSON.
But--whatever works: Then we Native Americans can take over Turtle Island and try to save the planet from being flushed into the abyss, too.
Why is it the primaries have just started and suddenly we're having Hillary and Obama crammed down our throats? Edwards was second in Iowa and third in NH and no one is saying a word about him not even the so called liberal press. Does it mean it's all over?
And if you call this racial tension, just wait until the rest of the country joins in. You ain't seen nothing yet. And what do you think is waiting for us when the Ministry of Information pulls the gloves off? We're being set up, doesn't anyone see it? I'm not a bettor, but with the way the Democrats are running this race, if McCain gets the Republican nomination, I would bet money he will be our next president, God save us. The Straight Talking Express sellout.
Only the Democratic Party is capable of losing what should have been a blowout. Edwards wins every match up poll hands down, but that's not good enough. The Democrats want a corporate shill, they will get their wish, but it won't be a Democrat.
kathyodat
D n G -- It's ironic that our screen appellations are polar opposites, while we tend to agree on most of everything.
THIS IS NOT A ACCIDENT OR CONTRIVENCE
Not that agreement is important, per se, it about re-affirming one's point of view distilled from thousands of billions of directed thoughts, observations, and visions for possible futures.
I really love Paul Hawkins' Blessed Unrest, as he explains how all of these millions of emergent socially conscious groups, ALL have consistent vision statements.
Think about that for a moment.
¿ How can literally billions of people all believe in principles that are not only mutually supportive, but have NO contradictions ?
The only way that I can get my "virtual" arms around this life saving emergent 'immune system of Gaia' is that our planet is becoming aware through humans, in a concerted effort to save itself and humankind.
will we be civil to the candidates after tearing them up here? i am certain that i read several over the top (meaning unbelievable as well as overdone) criticisms of both hillary (the one who is running) clinton and barack obama.
if you think that hillary planted that idiotic "iron my shirt" sign, think back to the last time you demonstrated against the war and someone came by and yelled out: "get a job!"
if you think that barack was being cruel when he told hillary she was likeable enough, you are not cutting the man enough slack.
the republicans want the democrats to destroy each other or self destruct, and the media are eager to pile on. i say concentrate on the issues and give our candidates a chance.
we put our candidates through the most grueling campaigns same as we treat people who would be doctors. i say be more reasonable in both cases and the result will probably be better.
let the primary be simultaneous nationally, and hold it in july or august. then let the selected candidates slug it out for the general election.
All I know is that I don't plan to vote for Clinton or Obama. Gender and race have nothing to do with it. In fact, I'd love to see a woman or a black person become president. I think it would definitely help heal at least some of our nation's wounds. Identity politics won't do anything but throw salt onto them. However, I simply don't think each candidate offers enough positive change for working people, poor people, people abroad, and the environment.
Clinton's problem isn't that she's "woman" enough. She's not progressive enough. She's a Nerf Republican. Obama's problem isn't that he's not "black" enough (Whatever that means, am I too 'white?' Some would say so. Too much white boy heavy metal for me. Some would say not enough since I support reparations among other things. I guess some people want Obama to scare whites, as if black progress means bad tidings for whites, which it does not. Or some equate progress with color. As if to be white means that you're anti-worker, anti-environment, anti-woman, anti-black, etc. And to be black means that you're hunky-dory all around when it comes to liberalism. But I digress. Apologies if I offended. I just don't like identity politics, and I wouldn't support the things I do if I wanted to keep that pot stinking. Some people love it...), Obama's problem is that like Clinton, he's Right Mild. Sure he seems like a nice guy, and maybe he is. I got swept up in his speeches too. But again, he wants to dance with the conservatives, thinking that they too have the best interests of the people in mind, when they clearly do not. He wants to play poker with the health insurance companies and big business fatcats. He SAYS he wants to pull out of Iraq, yet he votes for more money. He wants the elites to like him as much as the ordinary folk. It's not going to happen.
His middle name's Hussein! GASP!!!
He supposedly didn't put his hand on his heart during the singing of the National Anthem(?). OMG!!!! He's the Anti-Christ!!!
Who the fig cares?
Would either one of them be better than Dubbya (who needs to be put in front of a firing squad)? Sure. But don't give me a noogie because I'm disappointed that Dennis Kucinich, a man who is clearly the ideal candidate politically and progressively, the truest Democrat of them all (Gravel 'aint bad either), is being shut out of the game. He doesn't have the money, the celebrity endorsements, the look, or the coattails to ride on.
Tell ya what. Transfer Dennis' consciousness into Hilary or Barack's brain, and I'd vote for either of them in a heartbeat. But until that happens, regardless of whether he stands a chance in Hades, Dennis is my guy. I'm tired of settling. I need to go with my conscience. I need to go with a candidate who holds up when the layers are shaved off. And so does the rest of America.
The white people liked the black man. The white people felt good about themselves after the black man relieved them of the white man's burden. White people like black people who make them feel good about themselves.
Then the black man seemed ready to take away the rich white woman's dream. That seemed so mean. The black man made the rich white woman cry. White people don't think black men should make rich white women cry.
White people don't like the black man so much anymore. Thanks for relieving the white people of the white man's burden anyway.
Poet, thanks.
DAB - would we be talking about Hillary's "icy and uncompassionate persona" if Bill had never invited Monica into the Oval office? Did Bill cheat because he had a frigid wife or did Bill cheat because he needed to reassure himself that he still had enough charisma to seduce others?
As Salmon Rushdie depicted in The Satanic Verses, charisma is a form of seductiveness. Though, to concede, it is pretty hard to gain a following if one is completely incapable of seduction. Political careers often live and die on a politician's ability to draw others to him or her.
I think I've written enough on this thread - and got to get work done.
Yeah COCO, I didn't appreciate him/her giving me that seperate kudo either, like I'm the only one who has any common sense here.
Goodness gracious! these Clintons in their unashamed quest for power, which they think is their birthright, will never face facts even when their inevitable failure is staring them squarely in the face.
An unfortunate Frau Clinton nomination will spell another long spell for the Democratic Party remaining in the political wilderness - she is far too divisive - someone people just love to oppose due to her icy and uncompassionate persona.
What is important to her is not the welfare of the country and its people but rather her being able to seize the opportunity to use the people as a vehicle to attain power.
She will therefore continue to do much more of her "New Hampshire tear-swelling" as it paid political dividends.
Doom N Gloom, don't class everyone into a single group. For sure, many are only sensitive to racism that affects them. Worse, some could care less about the N, the R word or anythig concerning the human condition, just as long as the checks cash.
Vaudree0--
Thank you for the link to the Tommy Douglas oratory. Tommy D sounds like he was quite a guy. Were I a Canadian (was stationed at Goose Bay while in the Air Force in '68) I think i would be an NDP party member. From Tommy Douglas' oratory they sound like they were fifty years ahead of progressives in the US.
RE: - and being as i am a 'dumb' blonde foreigner (not french darling) i cannot comment on these 'politics' of yours as i don't understand them. but i like to read everything you all have to say and laugh at the funny comments.
Canadians would be happy if you were to show even that much interest in Politics in Canada. It would be a start ...
RE: - Well, who has the right to judge that?
Well, it seems, certainly not the Rwandans nor the Chinese "comfort women" used by the Japanese.
Found and old interview which took place after Shirley Douglas was kicked out of the US and told never to come back for organizing breakfast programs for Black and Mexican children. Seems that while she was calling for an end to the war in Vietnam in the US, her father was doing the same in Canada (even though Canada was not involved in that war):
http://youtube.com/watch?v=eA4HWec9DAQ
RE: - Are Jews sensitive only to genocide suffered by Jews?
**well I read an interview with Steven Spielberg the other day and he said the Holocaust was the greatness crime ever perpetrated against the human race.
Well, who has the right to judge that?
I mean, getting your eyeballs melted in Hiroshima doesnt sound very good either, and at the end of the day it is perverse to make a game out of suffering.
I'm seeing this more and more as the race winds down. News for news sake. Even the more progressive publishers are defining what will constitute for news by publishing speculation and hearsay.
The real news is that US voters are once again being led to a trough of placation. Irrelevant red button issues such as racial disharmony and gender stereotyping are dividing an otherwise unified constituency from focusing on the fact that their candidates of choice have been locked out of the national debate.
Those of you who have posted here should know better than to attack one another. If you have chosen to do so, you are merely allowing yourself to be manipulated into a cock and bull whopper of a yarn!
Dennis Kucinich for president!
PACPLYER
here, here. that hey now is just trying to upset us all. and yes, he/she is posting the same comments on other threads. so best to just ignore....
KEM PATRICK
and being as i am a 'dumb' blonde foreigner (not french darling) i cannot comment on these 'politics' of yours as i don't understand them. but i like to read everything you all have to say and laugh at the funny comments. and i suppose things could be worse: gwb could be parading round the m.e. with an ex model-turned-singer on his arm..............
Poet, concerning King's Vietnam address, THANK YOU!
I noticed, for the segment that I listened to, that the transcript and the speech did not match word for word - which is basically just proof that I listened with more attention than usual.
I was shocked at how much King said about Vietnam which applied to the situation in Iraq. I can also see why Americans are clamouring for King's reincarnation to step forward, but Obama isn't it. First, there was quite a bit of substance in what King was saying. Secondly, though both men are very charismatic, their style of presentation was quite different. Thirdly, I recognised the values of the social gospel in King's oration because I have grown up admiring politicians who have given those values voice.
In fact, in speaking style, substance and values presented, King reminds me of another Baptist Minister turned political activist more than ever - Tommy Douglas (the Father of Medicare).
There is no complete speech of Tommy Douglas's available (except the Mouseland one) but this one of exerpts will give you the picture:
http://www.ndp.ca/page/4310
Sometimes I wonder whether the drunken driving charge was the result of someone looking for dirt on Tommy Douglas's grandson, but, even if it was, he did it to himself. Tommy Douglas's actor daughter and grandson both promote his causes of pacifism, human rights, health care etc - but neither have either the passion, courage or tenacity of Tommy Douglas. Still, the drunken driving charge does make it more difficult for Kiefer Sutherland to speak out in either the US or Canada and came just as politics was about to become more front and centre in both countries.
RE: - I was talking to a black man yesterday and he told me: "Why should I vote for Hillary just because she's a woman? I'm not sleeping with her! I'm a black man, I'm voting for Obama."
That is discusting, not only is he being misogynist in saying that he would only vote for a woman if he was getting "fringe benefits" from her, he is thinking like a corporation concerning all politicians!
RE: - here is their voting records
I am more interested in what factors they considered before voting. There is usually a bit of a "discussion" in the house before a vote. Who here knows how to get a transcript of this "discussion" - it must be available on line some place!
For those who would choose McCain over Hillary, here is their voting records:
Hillary:
http://www.vote-smart.org/voting_category.php?can_id=55463
McCain:
http://www.vote-smart.org/voting_category.php?can_id=53270
MaxheMust January 13th, 2008 11:52 am
..."suddenly millions of black Americans would suddenly have hope,..."
I don't like Obama nor will I vote for him because he refuses to commit to ending the war even by the end of 2013 if elected (my main issue), but I think you make a valid point. However unfounded the hope, hope is better than no hope. I was talking to a black man yesterday and he told me: "Why should I vote for Hillary just because she's a woman? I'm not sleeping with her! I'm a black man, I'm voting for Obama."
The Clintons are not racist. The gray card was/is just a tool, a bit of a trial balloon to see what shakes out. The Clintons could care less about the skin color of Obama or anyone else-they are addicted to power, they need it, they will crawl in bed with anyone or any idea to get it.
Thanks to Kem and BeForKids for their kind words, they are appreciated.
I have been thinking about a phrase posted here regarding foreign policy: It's the empire stupid ! This term strikes me as perceptive and useful and I hope it is repeated many times. It both educates people and describes our central foreign policy problem after five hundred years of empire in this hemisphere. A paradigm shift is badly needed to identify and change our foreign policy objectives. It's an open recognition that yeehaa is not a foreign policy.
RE: - Branch Rickey told Jackie Robinson the only way to break through the color barrier was to ignore the racial insults and play good basedball. Otherwise the experiment would spiral into a racial melee.
Strange how Jackie Robinson did not get his start in Texas but in Montreal (where the racism was not as overt). Jackie Robinson has his own Heritage Minute and Radio Minute. The following is an exerpt (for better or worse) of the write-up which came with it:
After they won the final game, fans carried Robinson around the field on their shoulders. Robinson finally had to sprint to the safety of the locker room, "probably the only day in history," one writer noted, "that a black man ran from a white mob that had love, not lynching, on its mind."
http://www.histori.ca/minutes/minute.do?id=10218
RE: - Then, the racial baiters will turn tail and run like the cowards they are.
Times have changed. Overt racism is apt to help Obama just as overt misogyny is apt to help Hillary - because of the backlash each causes. Finally saw the clip for myself - it was two plants who shouted "iron his shirts" as Hillary was speaking - before that, the woman vote was Obama's. Hillary handed it too well, like she was expecting it, and gave this look as if she was above responding to such taunts.
I am not sure how it will go on the Presidental stage, but when it is just Dems, their sense that injustice has been done makes them gravitate towards candidates who have been attacked for what they believe to be unfair reasons.
Note that it is never the candidate so much who uses the race or gender card when someone says something racist or misogynist, but their supporters! If the candidates ever talk about it, it is as a positive sign of how enlightened America has become. :rolleyes
Ron Paul blew it when faced with the fact that someone had written very racist comments under letterhead which bore his name. The only two acceptable responses were that the person was found and turfed or that he will look into it and find out who did it immediately (coming back within a few days saying that he has found the culprit and how the situation was handled).
Someone was looking through those old issues and figured that Christmas had come early when they found those passages. But who would benefit most on Ron Paul (or his team) being outed as racists? Both Obama and Ron Paul seem to be popular with younger voters. Who tends to be more tolerant of racism statistically - older or younger voters?
RE: - A President Obama will serve only corporations, symbolizing the servitude of blacks to white male CEOs.
Do you think that this will be revealed on January 21?
RE: - AmeriKKKa the home of the Klu Klux Klan is anybody really surprised that the white politicians are racist….
I remember the most racist thing I have ever said (which is saying something). I was walking with a new friend who was talking about (culinary derogatory term for Portuguese) and French Fries (what she called the French) and I turned to her and said: "Hey, Black people are not supposed to be racist!"
And years later when the same friend told me that someone was Mulatto, I had to ask her what it meant. My best guess was that it was a sexual term that I had never heard of before.
RE: - But what do you expect from someone who stayed with Bill Clinton who hid behind the word "is" when under oath?
I dislike Hillary Clinton for all the reasons listed but, most of all, because she not only sees imaginary people crossing borders but will tell you exactly where these imaginary people entered the United States. Hillary sees a bandwagon, she will not only get on it (no matter how nasty it is) but try to become its driver. HOWEVER, Bill Clinton's sex life is none of our business unless one can show that the "dalliance" resulted in Monica being awarded a government contract.
Note that by seeing "imaginary people" Hillary further marginalized the most marginalized segment of American society - not the Native Peoples or the Mexicans or the Blacks but the those of Middle East ancestry. Then again, how many American border guards can tell the difference between three of the four!
Also, by seeing "imaginary people", Hillary encourages the sentiment which wants to bring Canadian laws in line with American laws (from immigrantion to pesticide standards). And the whole thing feeds on something bogus. Anyone who has been to a border crossing knows that if you enter the US from Canada or Mexico, it is the American Border Security guards who decide whether or not they let you in NOT Canadian or Mexican border security!
RE: - MLK took the most disenfranvchised, civicly dispirited and apathetic people in our country (The poor and African-Americans especially in the southeastern US)and showed them that they could make history–which they and he did.
That is what his murder failed to understand - once he showed them how, they retained that knowledge. It was the racism of the murderer that saw MLK as an exception to the "natural rules" of intellect and his followers as people who, though they liked his vision, did not really understand the process that they were being herded through. Why not more talk about Rosa Parks, though? She was the one I voted for on AOLs Greatest American.
Will listen to the address as soon as I post this post. People have said that there is a similarity in MLK's and Obama's speaking style. The term "fairy tale" does not speak so much to vision, in my opinion, but the idea that one is all style and no substance. That is, unless Bill was insinuating that Obama is set to replace Scott Thompson as the "Wedding Fairy."
RE: - Dang, if it's Clinton vs. McCain, McCain just might be the lesser evil.
Or, like Ronald Reagan, a kinder gentler face on evil. I have a distrust of any Repug which tries to present themselves as an oxymoronic "Compassionate Conservative."
If it is between Hillary and some Republican ...
But then again it is too soon for the Dems to launch an ABC (anybody but Clinton) campaign. We should not forget about Edwards no matter how much the media wants us to. Then again, if Edwards doesn't hold his on on January 21, it will probably be game over.
RE: - Notice carefully how the Obama campaign has played the race card, without seeming to have played the race card.
I have. You've got to admire the strategy behind it! It is like watching Luongo in net!
I'd prefer Kucinich to the others, but if not DK, then I hope Obama gets it. True he's not perfect, but if he gets in the white house, suddenly millions of black Americans would suddenly have hope, something that has been torn out of them by the radically selfish and racist ruling elite. Whatever Democrat gets in office, i think the pessimists will all be suprised. It's time for some major changes and they will come like tidal waves.
The Clinton's just like the Bush clan are nothing more than spoiled brats when things don't go their way.
I did.
Well, I'll give the Obama campaign credit for being slick. Of course, after 8 years of slick willy and 8 years of the smirking chimp and karl rove, slick and manipulative campaigns are more likely to make me puke than support them.
Notice carefully how the Obama campaign has played the race card, without seeming to have played the race card. Its done with subtlety, through surrogates and pundits while the candidate stands there and says that he'd never play the race card. Its done partially by waiting for the opponent to slip a bit. Its done by baiting opponents with incredibly phony positive comparisons between Obama and MLK Jr., then waiting for a response that can be used against the opponent.
The end result is that now there's this phony debate about race. Nothing real of course about what it means to really be non-white in America. Naw, just this sort of mudslinging crap between campaign surrogates.
Well, we are now deep into the disgusting mess that this campaign was always going to be. Hillary using the classic woman's tactic of fake tears to appeal to other women, and Obama playing the race card. And all in an environment of voting machines and vote counting computers that makes it impossible to tell if its the voters responding to these pitiful ploys, or if its just the computers spitting out the results they were programmed to provide.
Welcome to the swamp that is today's Democratic Party. Who the heck ever thought that going into this swamp to 'reform' this mess from within was ever a good idea?
barely human, I was thinking the same thing. In fact if it's McCain vs. Clinton, I will vote for McCain. I don't agree with him on the war, but at least he doesn't cry crocodile tears, plant "Iron my shirts" shills, and think MLK didn't do anything and it was only because of "Massa Johnson up de big house" that the civil rights act got passed.
Dang, if it's Clinton vs. McCain, McCain just might be the lesser evil.
RE: - MLK, Jr. IS overrated. He was merely the most visible face among many thousands of obscure activists across the country.
Some would say the same of Hitler - that it was not one evil man but a man able to capitalize on the evil of others. First of all MLK personifies those "thousands of obscure activists" because he was one of the more visible face among them. Secondly, MLK was assassinated because someone believed the movement would fall apart without him. Thus, there was a belief that he was able to bring out something in people that otherwise lied dormant but which would got back to sleep with him gone. While the former seems to be, to a certain degree, true, the latter wasn't. And MLK's death seemed to have the opposite effect. MLK turned on the steam roller - his killers mistook the on/off switch for the gas.
Finally, if you were to rate the relative popularity of Lynden Johnson and Martin Lurther King - Johnson would lose hands down. So one gains nothing by comparing the two. King has a day named after him, Johnson only a screwdriver.
RE: - I do try to bring a different perspective, my Indian perspective.
Native Indian or East Indian? Sorry, I know which you are referring to. It is just that in Canada there is a large enough Sikh population that we try to avoid the confusion.
We don't use the term "Canadian Indian" like you use the term "American Indian" but more so "Native Peoples" or "Native" "Cree" "Ojibwa" or "Saulteaux" - but only if the person you are talking about has been specific. We also tend to distinguish between being Native and being Metis or Inuit (Eskimo is the derogatory name that the Native Peoples had for them).
How vocal is the East Indian population in America? I never hear much about them.
RE: - My viewpoints on Indian mascots should not undermine contemporary life and death issues that Indians face every day.
The R word (and I don't mean Republican) does keep alive a stereotype of Native Peoples that some would wish would go away. Speaking of stereotypes, there was one episode of "Daughters of Our Country" where this one native woman had a vision that she would marry a creature that looked like a man but was all covered with hair - she ended up marrying the first white man her tribe was ever introduced to. Note that men in movies don't seem to have hairy chests in the movies like they did in the '60's - why is that so?
RE: - I do however address issues that are important in various parts of the Indian community known as Indian Country.
How many of those issues important to parts of the "Indian community" are important, in variant form, to other groups as well? One reason why I am interested in watching the January 21 debate on CNN (a channel Cannucks get) is that I've seen debates put on by native groups where the three party leaders wanting to be Premier performed. They tend not to let any one candidate monopolize the time and to focus more on issues unfavorable to corporations.
Premier=Governor
What I mean by "in variant form" is that while most groups are against racism directed against their own, they are not necessarily against racism directed against other groups. The example which comes to mind is David Ahenakew, a formerly respected Native activist who lost his Order of Canada after making extremely racist remarks against the Jews (lets just say he spoke of Hitler favorably). In England they Knight people, we give them the Order of Canada.
RE: - Contributions should be limited to ~ $100. Television and newspaper coverage should be publically financed to allow viable candidates equal public access. / Paper ballots should be mandatory.
I am not going to quote your whole post, Robert Settgast, but you have some good ideas. As a Canadian, I cannot complain about paper ballots with party representatives watching as they are counted, like here. The CTRC insures a certain amount of air time for candidates so why doesn't your FCC? In Canada (federally), we have two major debates called "The English debate" and "The French debate" and it is on all the major channels at once. You also have a choice of either the transcript or video afterwards so you can go through parts of it again and look at it more closely so that the pundents have less influence over how it is viewed.
When Gore finally spoke passionately (after death of friend and fellow Dem), it was presented as him being deranged and Bush scared to be in the same room as he was - which to the average Canadian view seemed like pure silliness!
Here is the English Debate for the last election:
http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20060109/ELXN_debate_transcript_060109/20060109/
RE: - Presidents should be limited one six year term.
There are pros and cons to this. If one is out for six years, one still needs a job after so one may be dealing in a way which would insure that job improves one's station. The other con is voter fatigue. BTW - why isn't the Green leadership race televised>
RE: - Why is it the media never refers to Barack as the first possible "half-white" presidential candidate? I guess the race card doesn't look as promising using that term.
I heard of him being referred to as bi-racial in the Canadian media.
RE: - Maybe the media will use the 'Ukrainian' angle and say that a vote for Kucinich would be the first time we could have a president of eastern European heritage?
There have been a lot of Canadian Premiers and Governor Generals who are Ukrainian, though, as of yet, no Prime Minister.
Premier=Governor
Governor General=Queen's representative and head of Canada.
No "Heynow" you can not dictate free speech by constantly spamming the same post over and over again. We are going to be negative if we want to. I think maybe you are at the wrong site. Try Northkorea dot com.
Goodbye.
Why can't somebody else damn say it? The Klantons, emphaisis on the Klan, are racist. What the hell does the action of Bill having a black retarded kid executed before the 1992 election to get the Klan vote tell anybody other than a damn brain dead red neck?
Kiss my damn "good old boy" Southern bootiy, if you damn say the Klantons aren't damn racist bastards and fascist loving jackasses.
This is nuts!
Somewhere, someone is trying to create 'issues' where there aren't any. The headline of this article says it all.
You have people taking comments repeated third hand out of context and reacting with all kinds of righteous indignation.
Apparently, whoever would like to see 'you and him fight' - rather than anything important happen -- doesn't have a very hard time finding people willing to do it!
Militdant Libera; says:
MLK, Jr. IS overrated. He was merely the most visible face among many thousands of obscure activists across the country. He gets the statues and holiday, but they deserve most of the credit. Making our history solely about Great Men, including MLK, is a way of making us ordinary folks feel powerless because we're not Great. Well, maybe one of you is Great; if so, please speak up. We await your orders.
********************
Militant I understand and agree with your analysis of who really makes history--all of the people--and commend you on a viewpoint shared by such notable scholars of "the people" as Howard Zinn, Studs Terkel, Kwame Ture (formerly Stokely Carmichael),and Michael Parenti.
However, I disagree with your marginalization of Dr. Martin Luther King Jr for precisly that reason. MLK took the most disenfranvchised, civicly dispirited and apathetic people in our country (The poor and African-Americans especially in the southeastern US)and showed them that they could make history--which they and he did.
With his birthday observance just around the corner it would be a good time to listen to his magnificent analysis of the American culture and the Vietnam War. Both the transcript and an audio recording can be found at:
http://www.americanrhetoric.com/speeches/mlkatimetobreaksilence.htm
I challenge anyone to listen to this address and seriously conclude that Dr. King was not a truly great American and citizen of the world.
Great post (12:37) Doom and Gloom. Somewhat unusual choice for a posting name, however - particularly considering what you just posted. But glad you're here.
Unknown Arts and Poet, I agree with you. Hillary was slyly stirring up the race card and I hope it backfires. She's a real backbiter, don't turn your back on her. I consider her an extremely dishonest and manipulative person. But what do you expect from someone who stayed with Bill Clinton who hid behind the word "is" when under oath?
Good to hear from you Kem and Rebel Farmer. It does feel like community here, and I don't feel so alone in my thinking. Even my good friends think I'm radical (somehow I don't think so), but here I feel kinship, and I gain a lot from others' posts. They bring up things I hadn't thought of, they post links I really appreciate, and some of the discussions are very interesting. The disagreements usually manage to stay respectful, even though occasionally tempers flare. And I've made some good friends here. You know who you are.
kathyodat
AmeriKKKa the home of the Klu Klux Klan is anybody really surprised that the white politicians are racist....
White Corporate AmeriKKa run by whites for whites
A President Obama will serve only corporations, symbolizing the servitude of blacks to white male CEOs. Do blacks want this? A President Hillary will serve only corporations, symbolizing the servitude of women to white male CEOs. Do women want this?
A President Kucinich will serve only we the people, symbolizing the servitude of white males to WE THE PEOPLE. Sounds good to me. Sound good to you? If so, write in Kucinich and write in third party progressives in all elections.
Alexnosal, great post -- but you forgot abortion and homosexuality (in addition to flag burning and school prayer).
It's the BURGERS:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=1070329053600562261
Branch Rickey told Jackie Robinson the only way to break through the color barrier was to ignore the racial insults and play good basedball. Otherwise the experiment would spiral into a racial melee.
The same is true for Obama and his supporters. They will be subjected to racial baiting during the entire campaign. Obama can either take the bait and allow his campaign to spiral into a losing racial melee, or ignore the predictable racial baiting, continue to show leadership on the issues concerning the American people and, like Jackie Robinson, break the color barrier with style and class. Then, the racial baiters will turn tail and run like the cowards they are.
Why is it the media never refers to Barack as the first possible "half-white" presidential candidate? I guess the race card doesn't look as promising using that term.
Maybe the media will use the 'Ukrainian' angle and say that a vote for Kucinich would be the first time we could have a president of eastern European heritage?
I find that all the emphasis on gender (Hillary) and race (Obama) is a great scam by the MSM media to avoid REAL issues like their positions on war, health care, unions, NAFTA, alternative energy, the military industrial complex, corporate crime, wage gaps, over populated prisons and a general Imperialistic White house.
Well I guess the MSM can always refer back to more fundamental issues like flag burning and school prayer if the public needs a change of scenery.
Detriment of Iowa & New Hamshire Carnivals
Again, the over hyped carnivals in Iowa and NH have eliminated our most valuable candidates, even with less than 2 % of the national population. This underscores the vital needs for reforms in our presidential selection processes, which are now more evident than ever.
Campaigning should be limited to two months, with no such Iowa & NH events. This would allow candidates ample time to present their positions, with less opportunities for deceptive slander. Contributions should be limited to ~ $100. Television and newspaper coverage should be publically financed to allow viable candidates equal public access. Popular voting should replace the electoral college system, which was enacted because of the difficulties of counting all votes at that time. Paper ballots should be mandatory.
Presidents should be limited one six year term. This would eliminate their need to appease special interests for re-election, which was why this stipulation was included in the 1861 Confederate Constitution. A confidence vote after 22 months would provide voters the needed opportunity to amend their vote in special cases.
Gloom and Doom, you are a very special addition to this forum IMHO.
amacd -- "What's that old comment about empires? Divide and conquer?"
Yup. This is a classic old English colonial tactic which they perfected in the Indian sub-continent and elsewhere. Ofcourse, they did not invent it but they did perfect it ! Divide and rule. Its the only way Empires (including our very own homegrown variety) can keep the populace in check.
Speaking for myself, I am new here. I am not an accepted part of the regular posters. I am nothing special just a moderately thoughtful and sometimes humorist person. I do try to bring a different perspective, my Indian perspective. I speak only for myself and do not wish to represent myself as speaking for the Indian community. I do however address issues that are important in various parts of the Indian community known as Indian Country. My hope is that my words may widen peoples knowledge and perspectives regarding Indian people. My viewpoints on Indian mascots should not undermine contemporary life and death issues that Indians face every day. It is just one part of the whole effort to raise awareness since Indian political issues are ignored by the media. Yes you will find strong statements in my posts and they are there for a purpose. It is not hatred but it is an attempt to force feed the truth as best I can know it and tell it. I have little or no ego so I'm not here to debate unnecessarily. In order for a conscious unity to occur between peoples at some level, mutual respect must be given and received. The spiritual energy that exists in all things creates the oneness that we are all a part of. We move forward in this physical world through balancing the light and dark, positive and negative. The dark or negative is as essential as the light or positive. I believe that one can reach into the darkness and pull out the light and in that way find the balance.
Why is this important? I believe that we are on the cusp of change more dramatic than anything we have yet seen or experienced in our lifetime. That change can be positive or negative depending upon finding balance in our hearts and spirits. The more people who find the balance the better our future outcomes will be. So my strong words are not driven by hate or ego but by my desire to heal the oneness before the great change. Each of us must find our own personal balance, that is all we are called to do.
I could write at least 400 names of those who blog here, who fit that criteria MILITANT LIBERAL.
Then of course we have a lot of terrific authors who write columns here, then there's Walter Cronkite, Helen Thomas and Keith Olberman. There's one candidate I prefer over the others, but I'm not going to get political and piss anyone off. And cutie COCO is a dumb blond foreigner, we can't take orders from her can we? She might even be from France. You can't help but love her and Kathyodat, Rebel Farmer and a few hundred others though. You are right on Rebel Farmer, this is a great group, a fighin family if you will, but shit, I argue with my Evie sometimes and she allows me to sleep in the same bed with her. ______ Usually.
MLK, Jr. IS overrated. He was merely the most visible face among many thousands of obscure activists across the country. He gets the statues and holiday, but they deserve most of the credit. Making our history solely about Great Men, including MLK, is a way of making us ordinary folks feel powerless because we're not Great. Well, maybe one of you is Great; if so, please speak up. We await your orders.
RE: - Meanwhile, Kucinich, Gravel and even Edwards were lost in the fray. They say bad publicity is better than none.
Well said!
RE: - Dr. King INSPIRED President Johnson, but President Johnson DID THE DEED. / Dr. King DID inspire a great number of people, but he ALSO was a person of ACTION. To limit his role to that of inspiration is to fail to understand the bravery, determination and tireless effort that he put forth.
I don't know if it is racism so much as an intentional diminishing of King's role in bringing this about. In fact, focusing solely on King could be construed as a diminshment of Rosa Park's effort. Well, King may have inspired and acted, but someone figured that the movement would die down after King's death and it didn't - because others step forward. Would Lyndon Johnson have signed the Civil Rights movement into law if the Civil Rights movement died with King!
It was a very stupid move since many Democrats see Martin Luther King the way Canadians see Scottish born Tommy Douglas. President Lynden Johnson is no more responsible for bringing in the Civil Rights act than Prime Minister Lester B Pearson was for bringing in Universal Health care - but I don't accuse the Liberals of being racist against Scottish immigrants!
Hillary Clinton just shot herself in the foot big time! Dissing King is like telling the Christian right that Jesus was gay and an abortionist! Clinton screwed herself over not just in SC but on the Jan 21rst debate where she will just make it worse by trying to explain her words - until they actually start sounding racist.
Of course Obama is going to try to capitalize on this! Especially since Obama got "iron shirted" in NH. You all know that those two guys with the "iron my shirts" signs were Clinton plants because anything resembling Misogyny would bring the woman vote (which was going to Obama) over to Clinton.
The thing is that the outrage could also hurt Edwards chances in SC.
RE: - Johnson spoke from a protected position of privilege
But Johnson did speak and act for those not so protected and not so privileged when he put the Civil Rights Act into law. Though, compared to King's groundwork, his was the smaller action.
As you say, someone from a position of privilege could have just stuck with the status quo rather than throw his lot in with those who did not already have the privileges he did. Give Johnson some credit for that.
Meanwhile, there are those who grow up with no such privilege who throw their lot in with the privileged classes against others of their own kin - who become mistresses of the privilege class in return for a few trinkets. You know of he who I talk! (actually there are a number of people I could be talking about throughout American history).
RE: - I see clever, dirty politics on the part of the Clinton camp.
The "iron my shirts" guys were clever, this was - er - counter productive. They would have been better off saying that comparing Obama to King was an insult to King's good name or something like that. The whole Obama was half the man King was (or even 1/4). That way they could diss Obama while putting King on a pedestal and use the opportunity to divorce the association between the two.
With the racist label, if Obama's camp can make it stick, you lose the Black vote, the Hispanic vote, the Pakistani vote and the vote of anyone else who fears for their rights. You also gain a sympathy vote for Obama from whites who believe in justice because it seems that he was unfairly picked on because of a some superficial quality that they believe shouldn't matter in politics.
Superficial quality: race, religion, gender etc - any quality that is irrelevant to job performance.
RE: - "If you have the facts, argue the facts, if you have the evidence, argue the evidence, if you have the law argue the law, and if you have no facts, evidence, or ;law on your side, then sling mud and see if any of it sticks"
True enough! But the trick is not to appear as if that is what you are doing - slinging mud. To pull it off properly, you need to be able to say - I didn't sling any mud look at my nice clean hands!
RE: - Who made sure that NAFTA, GATT, and the WTO passed and still support it to this day?
And the other nasty stuff - the Clintons - yeah. I am not fan of Hillary! Want some more details as to what the other two leading Dem candidates (Obama and Edwards) have to say on this issue. My feeling is that Obama is a bit more like Clinton than we want to admit at the moment. Anyone see that Murphy Brown episode about this guy who got elected and then realised who his backers were and ended up having to promote all these wierd and disgusting policies - I don't even know if Obama knows whose funding him!
RE: - Are Jews sensitive only to genocide suffered by Jews?
Some of them are. I can name some that aren't too, though. I think that is a problem that one tends to see atrocities committed against your own different than atrocities committed against the the others.
That is why, if the race card is played against the Clintons that there will be those out there emphasizing that what she said about King was not just against Black but that she was implying something similar against Tecumseh (number 37 on our list of Greatest Canadians) and (here is where my lack of American history concerning famous hispanics) too.
Locust: Thanks. I needed that. I can't watch TV much anymore because I'm alone and can't interact with others. That's what I like about this site. I feel like I am among friends, even if we disagree. I get down so low sometimes, but it's nice to come here and have others help pick me back up to fight another day.
Thanks all!
What was that remark Hillarious made about Obama and a spade? Of course she's a Republican. She's proud of her conservative/GOP upbringing; why, I don't know.
I'm sure the New Hampshire primary was rigged in favor of Clinton. All signs pointed to Obama's victory.
KEM PATRICK -
It is decidedly not racist. It could be anti-human, because we in the swarm find it incredible that a supposedly intelligent species discriminates on the basis of one's outside color.
Personally, I been under the weather but coming along okay.
How's the bride and wine and cheese program?
hey now -
It does feel good to vent. It feels good to know that I am not alone, and in fact to know how many others are out there trying to change things for the better.
Many here march, protest, petition, email, phone, donate time and money, in addition to sharing their thoughts, their dreams here in these posts. There is much more here than meets the eye.
We are all frustrated at the snail's pace of change.
Accumulating the power to effect change is difficult, and the way we do it is to share strategies and ideas, try to find common grounds for our common dreams, inform each other, and or course, argue argue argue.
I hope you'll be here tomorrow over coffee.
If you only admire one poster, KEM PATRICK is a good choice.
For a human, that is.
Being just a pest, I'm partial to insects.
See, you get humor, too.
Is that racist Locust? I don't know why race ever came up? Can someone help me there?
Hey how ya doin BTW?
Let me see if I have this Clintonian argument correct.
MLK inspired without deeds, although he was involved with speeches, sermons, marches, jail, protests and martyrdom.
LBJ signed pieces of paper and thus deserves more of the credit for civil rights.
Right?
The Clintons are acknowledging that they do not have real power, power to move people and change the world, a la MLK.
They seek institutional power to command because they cannot lead.
Okay — Here goes. I am going to 'burn the bridge' with you all, so to speak.I have not been a frequent commenter at all, maybe 5 or 6 times in all anyhow, so it sure won't hurt this community of RIGHT folks . . .
Right. Yep. I agree with almost every single comment I read posted at the end of these here articles. You all are pretty right for the most part. I read the articles religiously. Common Dreams is my homepage and the first thing I read over coffee in the morning.
Yep.
Right.
Right, as in YOU GUYS KNOW EVERYTHING THERE IS TO KNOW.
You are all, to a person, damn smart.
Damn negative.
Damn angry.
(So am I, believe me)
I read the stories, then scroll down to see who is saying what (Kem, you are one of the only people here that has any real wisdom and prudence, imho) and all.
I have slowly over the last few months become more and more disgusted with this 'commenting'.
It is just gross.
Ugly.
You are all 'preaching to the choir' and it makes very little if any difference at all.
I know it feels good to vent.
It feels good to be real smart and have great convictions and insight, but WTF do any of you plan to accomplish by raging back and forth endlessly???
"Gee, maybe if I say the absolutely smartest and wittiest thing, someone will get inspired and do something . . ."
Yeah, you all are so smooth, so slick, so RIGHT and so Full Of Shit too!
I am done reading the comments.
I get too depressed seeing all of you well-meaning folks talking to each other inside of this little bubble and just going around and around in circle — and wasting time and energy.
Get a life people.
Organize.
Write passionate responses on conservative websites.
Go head to head with the real deal, the people that need to hear all these insightful and angry retorts and opinions.
Or would you all rather just be cool and right amongst each other?
I'm done here.
This sucks.
Later.
Gee, one has to wonder (for about one nanosecond) whether with talk of racism and sexism now having lit a fuse in the corporatist controlled MSM, whether the entrenched ruling-elite might benefit from this emotive discussion?
What's that old comment about empires? Divide and conquer?
Of course, if any candidate actually challenged the source of all our foreign and domestic problems with the serious campaign call, "It's the empire, stupid", instead of the criminally stupid slogan, "It's the economy, stupid", or the even more vacuous monosyllable, "Change", then the corporatist empire behind this facade of 'Vichy' American government might have a tougher time dividing people.
After all, pro-empire voters are an infinitely small demographic —- and very quite about their real preferences.
Black's are myopic too. Blacks dispise the use of the N word. American Indians dispise the use of the R word, Redskin. A redskin is a bloody scalp. Despite the Indian Peoples strong opposition to the R word, Blacks populate the Washington Redskins Football Team. So where is the balance?
The word redskin demeans Indian people and leads to further dehumanization. Dehumanization leads to genocidal policies and behaviors.
So I ask, are Blacks selfishly sensitive to only racism aimed at Blacks? Are Jews sensitive only to genocide suffered by Jews? Where is the justice and balance in these examples?
The Clinton's are both selfish and wrong to play the race card.
The black folks in the U.S. also have to smarten up their tactics. Having Al Sharpton go on television on CNN and demand that Kelly Tilghman be fired, after Tiger's camp had let it be known that they didn't believe she was being hurtful, wasn't very wise, especially since Marion Jones was given a six month jail sentence for lying and no one spoke up for her. The injustice of such a sentence is all the more remarkable considering that the Hilton heiress received only a few days in jail for impaired driving. If that is not a clear case of black and white, I don't know what is. But then, maybe lying to that worthless scum which is the U.S. corporate government is more of a crime than killing hundreds of thousands of innocent Iraqis.
Oh-oh, here it comes. __ What a damn shame.
What difference does Barak Obama's skin color have to do with anything? He's a very good man. Not presidential in my opinion, and neither is Clinton, but he's a very good person. If any attack his record, or differ with his opinions, it should not be construed to be racial. Playing the race card by anyone will hurt him, far more than help him, __ at least I think so.
Left of Left speaks a useful truth worthy of further elaboration. Beyond their natural indifference to anyone with less wealth and influence among imperialist elites than themselves, both the Clintons and their corporate state sponsers (a polite way of saying "fascist caitalist pig patronss") is the growing concern and realization that nobody much is buying this gorilla named Hillary.
The Clinton's are both lawyers (as are a discouragingly overwhelming majority of the candidates who seek the presidency) and in law there is a saying:
"If you have the facts, argue the facts, if you have the evidence, argue the evidence, if you have the law argue the law, and if you have no facts, evidence, or ;law on your side, then sling mud and see if any of it sticks"
The Clintons (like their ass-kissing cousins the Bushes) have no evidence, facts, or law that would bolster their arguments as to why "the Hillary" should be President, so it is time to start slinging mud to see if anythig will stick. Don't swallow this crap like the MSM undoubetedly will, and focus on the issues:
Who made sure that NAFTA, GATT, and the WTO passed and still support it to this day?
Who arranged for the butchering of Yugoslavia and the destruction of its prosperous mostly state-owned economy?
Who carried out a continual campaign of relentless bombing and destruction in Iraq resulting in untold deaths of children, poor, and elderly due to the destruction of bridges, dams, power, water treatment, and sewage treatment infrastructure in the name of enforcing the "no-fly zone"?
Whose primary financial patrons were the Waltons of Wal-Mart, the Tysons of chicken, and other slave wage and labor enforcing corrupt businesses?
Who wants to make sure that insurance companies are "at the table" to help dictate the terms of any universal health coverage program for all Americans?
Who plans to keep the Iraqi war going on into the indefinate future?
The Clintons--that's who.
I see clever, dirty politics on the part of the Clinton camp. They understand that harping on the racial divide may lose them Black votes, but they write off the Black vote at this point, now that Obama has proven he's viable. What they hope is that raising race will help them hold onto or win back White votes, especially in the South (South Carolina upcoming). It's incredibly cynical and disgusting.
Ms. Clinton is a Republican and shows it in her unintentional statements on race. The substance of her quote on Fox News was that Dr. King was an idle dreamer, while it took President Johnson to get the job done. The statement is no better for her lack of intention to offend, because it suggests that her patronizing, superior view of Whites is deeply ingrained. The quote in the above article issued in support of Hillary Clinton:
Referring to the King quote, Sheila Jackson Lee, another Clinton supporter, said Clinton was trying to contrast King and Obama, not to diminish King: "It really is a question of focusing on the suggestion that you can inspire without deeds - what is well-known to the child who studies Dr. King in school is that yes, he spoke, but he also moved people to action."
only serves to make matters worse. "...you can inspire WITHOUT DEEDS..." Dr. King INSPIRED President Johnson, but President Johnson DID THE DEED. I'm not sure what she was clarifying that would help us to understand the LACK of racism in the comment, but she has only intensified that perception. Dr. King DID inspire a great number of people, but he ALSO was a person of ACTION. To limit his role to that of inspiration is to fail to understand the bravery, determination and tireless effort that he put forth. It is to fail to understand that, while Johnson spoke from a protected position of privilege, Dr. King acted in a world where his DEEDS and WORDS put his life at risk. Dr. King saw the inside of jail cells for his "dreams" while Johnson lived inside the nation's Mansion.
Clearly, Hillary Clinton is mired in the privilege of race and class, unable to imagine what it took for Dr. King to move this nation!
www.unknown-arts.org
Meanwhile, Kucinich, Gravel and even Edwards were lost in the fray. They say bad publicity is better than none.
The Clinton's don't hate just black people
They hate all people who are not wealthy
from creating millions of Chinese child slave laborers as a WalMart witch executive board member
to Bill Blowjob imprisoning more black people than any time in our nation's history
to destroying the American middle class with their NAFTA
the Clinton's hate a lot more than just black people
They hate all of us who can't afford to bribe them