I periodically visit Hillary Clinton’s website to check out their latest items. I just viewed a video of a group, African American Men for Hillary and was left sadden by the content.
Here's a link: http://www.hillaryclinton.com/video/45.aspx
Now, I believe in the privacy of the voting booth, everyone is entitled to select the person they deem best suited to be president. I do hope most will end up voting for Senator Obama. But what saddened me in viewing the video was that these men spoke with such passion, authority and righteousness about Hillary Clinton being the right person to support for president. Although it's not surprising they can more easily envision her as president because she's the known commodity, is there nothing in Senator Obama's background, credentials or policy positions which give them pause to see what impact he would have? How he would stand up to campaigning. Also, isn’t the positive subliminal message emanating from this viable campaign and conveyed to young children of African descent (deliberate wording to include Americans, immigrants and bi-racial children) in this country, not worth waiting or donating money?
I find it ironic that many of these men mention the Clinton campaign line ready to lead on day one, but ask any presidential biographer and they will tell you years of experience as a governor, U.S. senator and even first lady is no indicator of whether someone will be a good president. And when you ask biographers in their opinion which past presidents were good or effective, they usually mention traits such as political courage, character and judgment, not their experience prior to becoming president.
I want share an excerpt from a piece written by Andrew Sullivan (a conservative blogger writing on theatlantic.com) about the political baggage which encases Hillary:
"They are of different Democratic generations. Clinton is from the traumatized generation; Obama isn't. Clinton has internalized to her bones the 1990s sense that conservatism is ascendant, that what she really believes is unpopular, that the Republicans have structural, latent power of having a majority of Americans on their side. Hence the fact that she reeks of fear, of calculation, of focus groups, of triangulation. She might once have had ideals keenly felt; she might once have actually relished fighting for them and arguing in their defense. But she has not been like that for a very long time. She has political post-traumatic stress disorder. She saw her view of feminism gutted in the 1992 campaign; she saw her healthcare plan destroyed by what she saw as a VRWC; she remains among the most risk-averse of Democrats on foreign policy and in the culture wars . . .Obama is different. He wasn't mugged by the 1980s and 1990s as Clinton was. He doesn't carry within him the liberal self-hatred and self-doubt that Clinton does. The traumatized Democrats fear the majority of Americans are bigoted, know-nothing, racist rubes from whom they need to conceal their true feelings and views. The non-traumatized Democrats are able to say what they think, make their case to potential supporters and act, well, like Republicans acted in the 1980s and 1990s. The choice between Clinton and Obama is the choice between a defensive crouch and a confident engagement."
"They are of different Democratic generations. Clinton is from the traumatized generation; Obama isn't. Clinton has internalized to her bones the 1990s sense that conservatism is ascendant, that what she really believes is unpopular, that the Republicans have structural, latent power of having a majority of Americans on their side. Hence the fact that she reeks of fear, of calculation, of focus groups, of triangulation. She might once have had ideals keenly felt; she might once have actually relished fighting for them and arguing in their defense. But she has not been like that for a very long time. She has political post-traumatic stress disorder. She saw her view of feminism gutted in the 1992 campaign; she saw her healthcare plan destroyed by what she saw as a VRWC; she remains among the most risk-averse of Democrats on foreign policy and in the culture wars . . .
Obama is different. He wasn't mugged by the 1980s and 1990s as Clinton was. He doesn't carry within him the liberal self-hatred and self-doubt that Clinton does. The traumatized Democrats fear the majority of Americans are bigoted, know-nothing, racist rubes from whom they need to conceal their true feelings and views. The non-traumatized Democrats are able to say what they think, make their case to potential supporters and act, well, like Republicans acted in the 1980s and 1990s. The choice between Clinton and Obama is the choice between a defensive crouch and a confident engagement."
There is one statement I agreement with in the video, that this is the most important election in our lifetime. Not because of Senator Obama’s racial make-up but because a majority of people in this country are open to and concern with such issues as universal health care, environmental issues, and U.S. foreign policy (or image around the world). The next president will have an enormous opportunity for change. We therefore need someone such as Senator Obama, who has the audacity and confidence to believe in things that could be, and is not constrained by the fatalism of these men who support Hillary.
I wonder if at the end of day when the actual votes are tallied, one message as a result of this presidential campaign experience, may be less about was Barack Black enough and more about Black folks deep rooted inferiority complex and fatalism, no matter the size of the person's bank account or investment portfolio.
Comments are closed for this post.
