Imagine the scenario: Hillary has been chosen as Barack Obama's VP candidate. They are in a town hall debate with John McCain and his VP. Everything is going well until the question of security comes up. Barack is on the ball with how he can protect the country and work with the generals, etc etc, and Hillary is backing him all the way with everything he is saying, bright smile included.
Then someone innocently asks from the audience: "Mrs Clinton, that is not really true for Mr Obama, is it? You told us not long ago that John McCain was a better commander-in-chief than Barack Obama. Why should we believe you now?"
Why, indeed? Get out of that one, Hillary.
One will hear all kinds of reasons as to why Barack Obama achieved a seemingly impossible American dream: the first African American in place for the White House. There will be many people with numerous bits of 'evidence' as to why he is now the nominee over Hillary Clinton, who was the heir apparent up until October last year. There will also be countless words, specially from people who were against him but who will lay claim to have seen this victory all along, spewing all over the Internet and print media in tributes or blame. Get ready for the onslaught as the analysis begins.
However, I am not an American, which is perhaps why I do not view life in an American perspective. It means I am not befuddled by the usual fears and anxieties that might beset the average American voter. I am far enough away from the action, well across the Pond, to see what others who are closer often miss, and not affected by the negativity or euphoria that might have surrounded Obama. In such a position, one might miss some details, but one is then privy to an extraordinary panoramic view that one is often denied when one is too close to events.
Thanks to Newsvine, I have been able to watch the American elections from close quarters, to see the progress or fall of the leading candidates and to even have my two cents worth from the hustings through my favoured candidate, Barack Obama. i have to admit that if Obama were not in the race, I would have favoured Hillary Clinton. It just so happens that there are two history-making candidates with different advantages in the frame this year and that has presented a difficult choice to their supporters who would like to see either of them win. For years, there appeared to be no other choices but white males for the public to elect and then, like busses in a row, two other choices pull up at the same time. No wonder the nation seems to be heavily divided and confused, not because Clinton or Obama is so different from each other, or better than the other, but because the election has become unpredictable and exciting for the very first time, particularly for the Democrats. For women and minorities, it is really hard to know which way to go.
However, from across the Pond, a few things haven't made sense in the selection process and I think they need to change for fairness to be seen to be done when the dust has settled.
Once a fire gets going, it's hard to put out. Since Clinton's candidacy has ended, the millions who put all their hopes into Clinton understandably feel their hopes dashed. Some are quickly able to adjust and be inspired by Obama, if perhaps a little less than they were inspired by Clinton. But others feel that something was stolen from them, which unavoidably leads to labeling someone "thief". The potential to trust Obama is undermined. But what other options? Is McCain better for women? It would be easy to understand why some might be disheartened enough to think they won't vote at all.
There is a void waiting to be filled. So much passion aroused but now no where positive for it to go.
Barack Obama recently commented that there were three people instead of two in the race between himself and Hillary Clinton for the Democrat nomination: her husband Bill being the third. He felt there was some unfairness in recent remarks made by Bill about him and the active part he is playing in the campaign. I agree on both fronts.
There is no harm in Bill advising his wife, from the sidelines or in the background. Wives and husbands have a great role to play as supporting members of the team, from a respectful distance, not as the main players themselves. In this case, there are two main things wrong with Bill Clinton's current role.
Why are people 'colour-blind' when they are not 'gender-blind?
Many people (White ones mainly) are always keen to boast how 'colour-blind' they are. But if race and gender are the two key aspects which make up our identity, why are they not gender-blind too? Yet, in view of the rush of female support for Hillary Clinton in the New Hampshire primary, women who openly admitted rallying behind her because they perceived she had been treated in a 'sexist' manner by the media, they are certainly NOT gender-blind too. We tend to acknowledge women first, then worry about how they fit in with our perspectives later. We don't believe they are pseudo-men to make ourselves feel better. And very few men would boast of being a woman! They value their masculine persona and are proud of it.
After Hillary's dismal third-place race in iowa, she and her team quickly headed to New Hampshire. No sooner had they landed, when her campaign press secretary, Jay Carson, and the campaign's chief strategist, Mark penn, began the damage limitation exercise by dissing Iowan people and belittling their importance.
Unloading to the Wall Street journal, Jay said, “Iowa is so small, it’s like a mayor’s race in a medium-sized city. It wouldn’t be wise to put too much emphasis on it.”
The Clinton Plan would:
Establish a $30 Billion Emergency Housing Crisis Fund to assist states and cities.
Set a 90-day moratorium on sub prime foreclosures and an automatic rate freeze on sub prime mortgages of at least five years
Provide $25 billion in emergency energy assistance for families facing skyrocketing heating bills
Accelerate $5 billion in energy efficiency and alternative energy investments to jumpstart green collar job growth:
Invest $10 billion in extending and broadening unemployment insurance for those who are struggling to find work.
Barack Obama centered his post-Iowa victory speech around two words, "hope" and "change". Hillary Clinton has been trying to deflate the power of Obama's call by declaring that she is a proven "change agent" and by deriding Obama for raising "false hopes" with unrealistic promises.
Clinton's response, sadly, was entirely predictable. This is the cynical state of American democracy. Ironically, it's also the growing desire to overthrow cynicism that makes Obama so attractive to so many people.
But Clinton's words will ring true to many people. They've been "had" by too many disingenuous politicians that promise whatever will get them votes, as well as by too many well-intentioned but naively optimistic figures that end up doing more harm than good.
I can't express this better than Cornell West:
Last, but not least, there is a need for audacious hope. And it's not optimism. I'm in no way an optimist. I've been black in America for 39 years. No ground for optimism here, given the progress and regress and three steps forward and four steps backward. Optimism is a notion that there's sufficient evidence that would allow us to infer that if we keep doing what we're doing, things will get better. I don't believe that. I'm a prisoner of hope, that's something else. Cutting against the grain, against the evidence. William James said it so well in that grand and masterful essay of his of 1879 called "The Sentiment of Rationality," where he talked about faith being the courage to act when doubt is warranted. And that's what I'm talking about.
-- Cornel West, 1993, commencement speech at Wesleyan University
Many of us don't trust politicians. Some of us don't even trust other voters. I tend to believe that most people (including politicians!) would like to be honest, but they lack the courage to. We can't expect those we elect to be honest and courageous if we ourselves fail to be so in our own votes, much less our own lives. And when you are honest with yourself, there should be little discord between voting your heart and voting your mind.
A cynic has given up, or even worse, given in. A cynical electorate is not the best defense against cynical or disingenuous politicians.
I am both hopeful and skeptical toward Barack Obama. This is not a contradiction. I want change and I support Obama because I think his presidency will result in the most change for the better, partly because of Obama's character and attitude, partly because of the psychological cleansing the country will go through by electing him, and partly because of the huge positive impact electing a black man will have on this country and the world. This doesn't mean that I give him my vote and then take a passive back seat. It doesn't mean I won't hold him to the fire if he compromises what I entrusted to him. And though I believe strongly that finally electing a woman or an African American to the presidency is an important step for the country, electing a lousy one will be two steps back.
Dr. West, who spoke those words I quoted above 15 years ago at Clinton's alma mater, is today a "critical supporter" of Obama, tentatively "in his camp", is also greatly impressed by John Edwards, but is skeptical of Clinton's neoliberal agenda. You can read more of these opinions in this interview. You can watch him take Obama to task in this video.
The point of Obama's change message which Hillary misses, intentionally in my opinion, is that the change we need is not simply one of policy or the ends. It is as much about the means to those ends, and it is this that has electrified Independents and even a significant number of Republicans to support Obama. Sure, Hillary will get things done with all of her political skills and connections, but it is the how that troubles people. It is this displeasure that drove Republicans out of congressional power in 2006, and the same one that bestows unprecedented low approval ratings for the Democratic congress in control now.
Obama is not the first candidate to represent change, but he seems to be the first in recent times who can get elected and follow through. It isn't that people have not been aching for this kind of change in prior elections, there just hasn't been a critical mass of them. And after 9/11, such change was dealt a huge setback when people consciously or unconsciously sacrificed ideals, principles and hope on the altar of the new holy war against Radical Islamic terrorists.
I leave you with more from Dr. West, words that I hope will advise your vote whether or not you choose to give it to Obama, words that I hope can inspire in you "the courage to be impatient with evil and patient with people":
The country is in deep trouble. We've forgotten that a rich life consists fundamentally of serving others, trying to leave the world a little better than you found it. This is true at the personal level. But there's also a political version, which has to do with what you see when you get up in the morning and look in the mirror and ask yourself whether you are simply wasting your time on the planet or spending it in an enriching manner. We need a moral prophetic minority of all colors who muster the courage to question the powers that be, the courage to be impatient with evil and patient with people, and the courage to fight for social justice. In many instances we will be stepping out on nothing, hoping to land on something. That's the history of black folks in the past and present, and of those of us who value history and struggle. Our courage rests on a deep democratic vision of a better world that lures us and a blood-drenched hope that sustains us. This hope is not the same as optimism. Optimism adopts the role of the spectator who surveys the evidence in order to infer that things are going to get better. Yet we know that the evidence does not look good. The dominant tendencies of our day are unregulated global capitalism, racial balkanization, social breakdown, and individual depression. Hope enacts the stance of the participant who actively struggles against the evidence in order to change the deadly tides of wealth inequality, group xenophobia, and personal despair. Only a new wave of vision, courage, and hope can keep us sane – and preserve the decency and dignity requisite to revitalize our organizational energy for the work to be done. To live is to wrestle with despair yet never to allow despair to have the last word.
The country is in deep trouble. We've forgotten that a rich life consists fundamentally of serving others, trying to leave the world a little better than you found it. This is true at the personal level. But there's also a political version, which has to do with what you see when you get up in the morning and look in the mirror and ask yourself whether you are simply wasting your time on the planet or spending it in an enriching manner. We need a moral prophetic minority of all colors who muster the courage to question the powers that be, the courage to be impatient with evil and patient with people, and the courage to fight for social justice. In many instances we will be stepping out on nothing, hoping to land on something. That's the history of black folks in the past and present, and of those of us who value history and struggle. Our courage rests on a deep democratic vision of a better world that lures us and a blood-drenched hope that sustains us.
This hope is not the same as optimism. Optimism adopts the role of the spectator who surveys the evidence in order to infer that things are going to get better. Yet we know that the evidence does not look good. The dominant tendencies of our day are unregulated global capitalism, racial balkanization, social breakdown, and individual depression. Hope enacts the stance of the participant who actively struggles against the evidence in order to change the deadly tides of wealth inequality, group xenophobia, and personal despair. Only a new wave of vision, courage, and hope can keep us sane – and preserve the decency and dignity requisite to revitalize our organizational energy for the work to be done. To live is to wrestle with despair yet never to allow despair to have the last word.
-- Cornel West, 2004, Prisoners of Hope
The following is a list of links that explain the truth of Bill and Hillary Clinton with regards to their continued support for keeping people who use Crack Cocaine in prisons.
Bill never would reduce the crack cocaine that was asked for by many during his administration. Yesterday the supreme court gave permission to judges to have disgression in sentencing guidlines.
Clinton Signs Bill To Disapprove of Equalizing Crack-Powder Cocaine Sentences
On October 30, President Clinton signed a bill that blocks the U.S. Sentencing Commission amendments to equalize the penalties for crack and powder cocaine from taking effect
(see "Congress Nixes Amendments to Sentencing Guidelines on Cocaine, Money Laundering," 58 CrL 1086, October 25, 1995).
In a statement Clinton said the U.S. is making strides in combatting crime and violence.
"We have to send a constant message to our children that drugs are illegal, drugs are dangerous, drugs may cost you your life -- and the penalties for dealing drugs are severe," he said.
"I am not going to let anyone who peddles drugs get the idea that the cost of doing business is going down."
SENTENCING December 1995
Judges given leeway in crack sentencing
By MARK SHERMAN, Associated Press Writer Mon Dec 10, 6:25 PM ET
WASHINGTON - The Supreme Court, weighing in on an issue with racial undertones, ruled Monday that federal judges have broad leeway to impose shorter prison terms for crack cocaine
in a case that bolsters the argument for reducing the difference in sentences for crack and powder cocaine.
The court, by 7-2 votes in the crack case and one other involving drugs, upheld more lenient sentences imposed by judges who rejected federal sentencing guidelines as too harsh.
The decision was announced ahead of a vote scheduled for Tuesday by the U.S. Sentencing Commission, which sets the guidelines,
that could cut prison time for as many as 19,500 federal inmates convicted of crack crimes.etcetc
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20071210/ap_on_go_su_co/scotus_crack_cocaine;_ylt=ArOPMaGWWUQbAt1NkZylP42s0NUE
""at the npr black brown forum""With Her Eye On Nov. '08, Polls Dictate Clinton Crime Policy
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/celeste-fremon/with-her-eye-on-nov-08_b_75207.html ""When asked about her own policy,
"""Clinton said she agreed with the feds' recommendation for equalizing the sentences,
but she opposed making the sentencing changes retroactive"".
"I have problems with retroactivity," she said. "It's something a lot of communities will be concerned about as well."
Obama, Edwards, Richarson, Dodd, Kucinich said they were in favor of the sentencing change being applied to those already serving time.
Now before we get to the reality of how such a sentencing change would play out, let's parse what Clinton said:
Although she agrees that disproportionate punishments for crack versus cocaine are wrong for the future,
she doesn't feel that past disproportionate punishments are wrong.""
ARE THE CLINTONS TOO INVESTED IN THE PRISON INDUSTRY? CLICK READ MORE
7. OBAMA ON GOSPEL TOUR = MANY ARTICLES
8. OBAMA WON'T THROW GAYS UNDER THE BUS WILL HILLARY?
9. OBAMA ON PRIDE MONTH AND STATEMENT ON LGBT RIGHTS
10. GAY MAN CHARLES MERRILL TALKS TO ME ABOUT OBAMA CLINTON EDWARDS BY IM
TOO SEE LONG BLOG - CLICK - READ MORE
THE FOLLOWING ARTICLES COVER MANY AREAS FOR USE IN REBUTING THOSE WHO WOULD ATTACK BARACK
1. OBAMA WINS LOGO GAY DEBATES
2. OBAMA ON D.O.M.A. = DEFENSE OF MARRIAGE ACT
3. OBAMA ON NON BLOOD FAMILY VISITS
4. OBAMA ON UNTING AMERICAN FAMILIES ACT
5. OBAMA'S PAST WORDS 2004 RESEMBLES HIS PRESENT WORDS
6. OBAMA ON TRANSGENDER PEOPLE
