Straight talk about the Clintons, the Media and South Carolina

Jack and Jill Politics has an excellent post entitled “The Clintons, Black Folk and America – A Reckoning” that takes the Clintons’ bait about how great the 90s were and feeds it back to them, barbed hook and all:

All folks, not just black, start to publicly dig into the past and challenge the assumptions of Bill’s blackness and his greatness.

Here’s what they find.

  • The mass incarceration of black men, due largely to a failed “War on Drugs”…
  • There was the deregulation of the banking industry…
  • There was the expansion of media consolidation…
  • There was the missed opportunity to set us on a path of a sane energy policy…
  • There was “welfare reform”…
  • There was the sitting by and watching millions of people get butchered in Rwanda
  • There was the set of trade deals that lowered our standards and helped gut America’s ability to provide for itself…

I’m glad the ugly has come out. I’m glad Bill Clinton’s face is glowing so brightly and so red; the better to see this campaign by. I’m glad Bill Clinton is getting down and dirty and using his considerable political capital to smear a great presidential candidate. I’m glad The Clintons are calling in favors from their black beholden elected officials and power brokers. Because every time they do, we get to dig up another little nugget which has us questioning the entire premise of “The Clinton Administration.”

And I’m glad Hillary keeps moving closer and closer to Bill, closer to that co-presidency. Keep running on “experience.” Just don’t get mad when we help remind people what that experience really was, and why many of us never want to see it return.

The whole post is worth reading, not just for black people who are on the fence about Obama, but for anyone who’s still falling for the okey-doke that Bill Clinton was a great president and that Hillary is a shoo-in in November.

ETA: TPM’s Josh Marshall, a self-professed Clinton fan, has an insightful post about his own concerns surrounding “Bill 2.0“.

(more…)

Continue ReadingStraight talk about the Clintons, the Media and South Carolina

If I Had to Vote Republican

Random thoughts on tonight’s Republican Debate (live-blogging):

The format of the debate, with Brian Williams and Tim Russert asking specific questions with little follow-up or interaction from the other candidates makes things a little stilted. [ETA: This got better as the night wore on.] I was surprised and glad to see Ron Paul on the stage as I’m pretty sure his picture wasn’t in the opening graphic. He’s the Republican’s Dennis Kucinich and his voice is needed in these forums if only for his strident anti-war stance.

9:30pm: 30 minutes in and based purely on their performances so far, I kind of like Ron Paul and Mike Huckabee. There’s a clarity to their answers that’s noticeably missing from the others’, except arguably, for McCain, who I’d like a bit more if he weren’t so damn hawkish. Giuliani and Romney’s sourpusses are almost as off-putting as their tone and while Paul and Huckabee have some batshit-crazy stances on several issues, I don’t get the same images of “itchy trigger finger on the nuclear button” that I get from those two.

9:34pm: Russert asks, “Do you think the War in Iraq was worth it?” McCain basically says, “Hell, yeah!” though he equivocates quite a bit. Giuliani attacks Hillary Clinton’s flip-flopping on the war (rightly so) in giving his answer but ultimately says it was worth it. Paul says very straightfowardly, “It was a very bad idea and it wasn’t worth it.” Huckabee says that he supported the President, as did the Democrats, and that, effectively, it was worth it. Romney says yes, but says that it was mis-managed but the surge is working.

(more…)

Continue ReadingIf I Had to Vote Republican

Time Out!

Okay, once I start posting 2am rants about politics, it's clearly time to pause for a deep breath and talk about something else for awhile. ...  Spindle? Chugging along quite nicely. We hit 15,000 page views on Sunday and today's update concludes the "official" launch. Now I have to start working on February's content, including a new Notable New Yorker interview. Writing? Haven't written anything new in a few weeks (the random villanelle doesn't count) and have to put together at least one submission before the end of the month. Read "A Change in Direction" last night in the open mic. Reading? I'm juggling…

Continue ReadingTime Out!

The SC Debate

In retrospect, I'm so annoyed that I missed tonight's debate in favor of poetry, but I'm glad that Obama apparently finally brought it: "I can't tell who I'm running against sometimes." [youtube:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MD9F1t9GQzA] Sorry, but it's official. I hate the Clintons and I will not vote for Hillary if she's the Democratic nominee, even if Bloomberg doesn't run. Side note: The thing that frustrates me the most, and honestly makes me sad to the point of tears, is the people who want and expect more from politicians but accept the Clinton's dirty tactics because  it's just politics and "that's how the game is…

Continue ReadingThe SC Debate

Is Barack Obama Electable?

This started out as a reply to a friend’s email who asked the question, and despite my wanting needing to come up for air from the political waters for a day or two to avoid an early repeat of 2004 where my frustrations got the better of me and my cynicism hit new lows, it evolved into this post…

It’s a fair question that we really won’t know the answer to until it’s actually an option, but I’d say Obama is as electable as Hillary Clinton, if not a bit more so.  She’s a known entity and there’s a pretty large group of people on both sides of the divide who simply won’t vote for her, no matter who her opponent is.

I’ve got one foot in that camp myself thanks to the way she and Bill have been campaigning lately.

She’s got several old sets of baggage she’s carrying around from the 90s — failed health care proposal; NAFTA; DOMA; “don’t ask, don’t tell”; her refusal to release her sealed records from the 90s until after the election — not to mention what’s perhaps the biggest set that’s been pretty much overlooked because she’s a Clinton: she’s a woman. There are as many people in this country who won’t vote for a black man as there are who won’t vote for a woman, and if there was a way to pull back the curtain and see what’s really happening out there, I think you’d find a lot of them [not ALL of them, and not even a majority] are supporting John Edwards right now as a way to hide that bias, perhaps even from themselves.

As for the Republican contenders, they’re dealing with a seriously fractured party that doesn’t appear ready to compromise just yet. The longer Thompson and Giuliani stay in the mix, and as long as Ron Paul continues to play the reasonably well-funded Sharpton/Kucinich role, the better the Democrats’ chances are in November… as long as they don’t tear each other apart like Bill Clinton seemed intent on encouraging over the past week.

(more…)

Continue ReadingIs Barack Obama Electable?

There’s Something (Wrong) About Hillary, Pt. II

And the hits just keep coming!

First it’s the disingenuous twisting and distorting of Barack Obama’s statements about Ronald Reagan which (rightly, IMO) suggested that Reagan had tapped into and delivered upon a desire for fundamental change in a way that Bill Clinton’s presidency didn’t. At no point did Obama suggest that he thought Reagan was a “great” president, though:

“I do think that, for example, the 1980 election was different. I think Ronald Reagan changed the trajectory of America in a way that, you know, Richard Nixon did not. Um, and in a way that Bill Clinton did not. He put us on a fundamentally different path because the country was ready for it. I think they felt like, you know with all the excesses of the 60s and the 70s, and, you know, the government had grown and grown and there wasn’t much sense of accountability in terms of how it was operating. And, I think, people just tapped in– he tapped into what people were already feeling which was we want clarity, we want optimism, we want a return to that sense of dynamism and entrepeneurship that had been missing.”

Compare that to the nonsense both Hillary and Bill are claiming he said and you have to wonder which is worse: how stupid and easily manipulated they clearly think Americans are, or how stupid and easily manipulated the press clearly is that they report this garbage unchallenged on the eve of a critical and competitive election. Ironically, the following statement can be found right on Clinton’s own website in the Press Releases section, in an article dated 12/12/07 announcing several New Hampshire newspapers endorsing her:

She is sincere and passionate about restoring fiscal responsibility, providing health care to all Americans, protecting the environment, keeping the tax burden off the middle class and earning the faith and trust of the American people.

But no president can do it alone. She must break recent tradition, cast cronyism aside and fill her cabinet with the best people, not only the best Democrats, but the best Republicans as well.. We’re confident she will do that. Her list of favorite presidents – Washington, Adams, Jefferson, Lincoln, both Roosevelts, Truman, George H.W. Bush and Reagan – demonstrates how she thinks. As expected, Bill Clinton was also included on the aforementioned list.

[ETA: Ben Smith has more on Clinton and Reagan, including her campaign’s clumsy two-step explanation which, ironically, makes reference to “damaged” audio from the original interview where it came up!]

Besides the hypocritical presence of Bush and Reagan, most notable by his absence is Lyndon B. Johnson, the president without whom, she recently suggested, Rev. Martin Luther King, Jr. would have been little more than an idealistic dreamer. A cynical observer might suspect that’s because in those long-ago years, when she was less concerned with the black vote, she supported Johnson’s opponent, the Republican Barry Goldwater, who was against the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and lost to Johnson by one of the largest margins in the history of U.S. Presidential elections.

But people change, right? They mature, become enlightened, evolve their thinking. Right?

(more…)

Continue ReadingThere’s Something (Wrong) About Hillary, Pt. II

Gambling with God in Nevada

With the cynical lawsuit to stop casino workers from caucusing on the Strip tomorrow having been rightly dismissed, the LA Times has an interesting article entitled “Clinton plays gaming card against Obama“, pointing out her latest attempt to muddy the waters in what is looking more and more like a campaign against Barack Obama instead of the campaign for Hillary Clinton she was running most of last year when she was still the “presumptive nominee”:

The issue has come into focus primarily due to the Clinton campaign, which has distributed a document to local reporters, headlined, “Obama Blasted Gambling as Socially Destructive and Economically Irresponsible,” listing several of his past quotes.

Among them are a 2003 comment in the Chicago Defender, a black newspaper, in which Obama argued that the “moral and social cost of gambling, particularly in low-income communities, could be devastating.”

In 2001, the Clinton memo states, Obama described himself as “generally skeptical” of gambling as an economic development tool and likened the expansion of slot machines to the state lottery, in which, he said, “you’ll have a whole bunch of people who can’t afford gambling their money away, yet they’re going to do it.”

As part of its efforts to publicize those statements, the Clinton campaign has secured the help of top industry players — several of whom participated in a campaign-sponsored conference call with the media last week designed to chastise Obama.

Southern California-based Latinopoliticsblog.com zeroes in on an interesting point that’s buried towards the end of the article:

The other ironic thing about this issue is that Hillary Clinton is a follower of the Social Principles of the Methodist Church, which calls on Christians to obstain [sic] from gambling. How does she reconcile her church’s beliefs with her heavy ties to the gambling industry? I would expect this sort of dilemma from Mitt Romney or Rudy Giuliani, but not Hillary Clinton. Why did she even need to go there with the religion?

(more…)

Continue ReadingGambling with God in Nevada

No more posts to load