Anyway so after supporting the Iraqi War enthusiastically and refusing to stand up to the Bush /Cheney regime in this matter or just about any other matter of consequence now Hilary Clinton attempts to claim to have always been against this illegal invasion of the sovereign country of Iraq. Even now she tries though to shift the blame of America's failure in Iraq not on Bush & Co. which would include the Senator herself rather she places the blame on the Iraqi puppet regime and the terrorized Iraqi people.
Maybe if Hillary Clinton had spent some time investigating the claims made about Saddam Husein by the Bush administration she might have realized as many other people did that the whole thing was a sham. Its good that she has come around but unfortunately it is only after the deaths of some 4,000 Americans and some 200,000 to 750,000 Iraqis have perished and some 4,000,000 (four million )left the country as refugees due to George W. Bush's madness and incompetence. The American people in 2006 voted overwhelmingly against George Bush and his policies. So why didn't she speak up earlier.
And further what help does she propose to give to the Iraqi refugees . The welfare of these four million Iraqi refugees is to a great extent the responsibility of the United States government and like it or not of the American people. But I'm sure Hillary Clinton will find a way to wash her hands of the damage done to Iraq by the US invasion and occupation of that country. This will also mean little or no help to the Iraqi refugees . During the course of the war only a few thousand Iraqis have been permitted to immigrate to the United States . Meanwhile the government has only given a minuscule amount of financial aid to the countries inundated by a steady stream of Iraqi Refugees. But then again she is probably as Islamophobic as most Americans especially since she too sees nothing wrong with bombing the Hell out of Iran or any other Islamic government that refuses to obey Washington's orders even if the policies may harm their own country and their own people. Since in the end it is up to America to decide how a foreign country deals with its own natural resources.
And as has been discussed before is Hillary going to put a stop to illegal and immoral practices such as 'renditions ' and ' torture ' or is she afraid that the American public is in fact in favor of torture and renditions . Will she insist that the United States government and the Pentagon and CIA and the soldiers on the ground and the 'Private Contractors " in Iraq or elsewhere abide by International Law including the Geneva Conventions . If she does not then she is no better than Bush and Cheney .
Further will she as required by the Geneva Conventions and International Law bring all those who have committed atrocities and other War Crimes to justice.This would also mean bringing to justice Bush, Cheney, Condoleeza Rice, Alberto Gonzalez, Karl Rove and anyone else who allowed or encouraged or turned a blind eye to these War Crimes and atrocities . I fear she will not since International Laws and the Geneva Conventions are just mere rhetoric to her and the White Middle Class and Rich who support her. They also seem to believe that such laws were made to be imposed on other nations and not the United States which is after-all is a " Righteous Nation " and beyond any such critique or accusation.
So given her newly found opposition to the war will she stop beating the war drums against Iran and Syria and other countries . Again I doubt this very much . War has become an integral part of the American mindset especially since 9/11. And Hilary no less than Bush also likes to invoke 9/11 when she wants to weasel her way out of certain questions on torture and renditions and Guantanamo and the secret operations taking place in Iran by the US Military and other agencies.
The even uglier question for Hilary and the American electorate is whether a " white Upper Class Woman " in an election trumps a black middle class man or even any white male running no matter what their policies or vision of America.Since Hilary and her supporters have decided it is now time for a woman as president no matter what her policies are.
And the problem becomes that anyone supporting Hillary could be characterized as being somewhat racist by not voting for Obama. But someone voting for Obama or Edwards can be characterized by some as being sexist. So for those who want a progressive Democrat as leader of the Democratic party is on the horns of a dilemma
And for someone to vote for John Edwards could be characterized by some as being both 'sexist' and ' racist 'even if one argues his policies are the most reasonable and the most progressive. At some point Americans have to get beyond this manner of voting for a candidate.
Clinton says she'll begin Iraq pullout within 60 days, at The Raw Story,John Byrne ,January 15, 2008
Democratic presidential hopeful Sen. Hillary Clinton (D-NY) said Monday on Meet the Press she'd begin withdrawing troops from Iraq within 60 days, if elected.
"I have said that as soon as I become President, I will ask the Joint Chiefs, secretary of defense, my security advisers to give me a plan to begin withdrawing our troops within 60 days," she told Meet the Press host Tim Russert.
And here's what Gloria Steinhem argues in supporting Hillary Clinton.
Gloria Steinhem : Women Are Never Front-Runners , New York Times , Jan. 8,2008
...So why is the sex barrier not taken as seriously as the racial one? The reasons are as pervasive as the air we breathe: because sexism is still confused with nature as racism once was; because anything that affects males is seen as more serious than anything that affects “only” the female half of the human race; because children are still raised mostly by women (to put it mildly) so men especially tend to feel they are regressing to childhood when dealing with a powerful woman; because racism stereotyped black men as more “masculine” for so long that some white men find their presence to be masculinity-affirming (as long as there aren’t too many of them); and because there is still no “right” way to be a woman in public power without being considered a you-know-what.
I’m not advocating a competition for who has it toughest. The caste systems of sex and race are interdependent and can only be uprooted together. That’s why Senators Clinton and Obama have to be careful not to let a healthy debate turn into the kind of hostility that the news media love. Both will need a coalition of outsiders to win a general election. The abolition and suffrage movements progressed when united and were damaged by division; we should remember that.
...This country can no longer afford to choose our leaders from a talent pool limited by sex, race, money, powerful fathers and paper degrees. It’s time to take equal pride in breaking all the barriers. We have to be able to say: “I’m supporting her because she’ll be a great president and because she’s a woman.”
And here's a commentary on Clinton's statement that seemed to suggest that the work of Martin Luther King and tens of thousands of those who took part in the Civil Rights Movement was not as crucial as that of President Johnson signing the laws guaranteeing human rights and civil rights for all Americans and not just for the White Middle Class:
Clinton vs. Obama: Lest We Forget,Huffington Post , Clarence B. Jones, January 15, 2008
The Clinton vs. Obama contest for the Democratic ticket of the upcoming residential race raises some provocative issues when reflecting on the Women's Movement and the African American community. So much so that a recent comment by Senator Hillary Clinton about it taking President Lyndon B. Johnson's signing of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 for Dr. King's dream to be realized ("It took a president to get it done," stated Senator Clinton) was viewed by many as racially insensitive and a major gaffe. The comment has further sparked a national debate and has become, for now, a focal point of an already white hot, volatile political contest. It's no surprise that Dr. King's name and the Civil Rights Movement have been invoked into this discussion. I suspect that it won't be the last time either. Aside from Abraham Lincoln and the Emancipation Proclamation, Dr. King, with whom I worked closely as personal counsel, advisor and draft speechwriter for much of the Civil Rights Movement, may have done more to achieve social, political and economic justice in America than any other event or person in the previous 400 years. So, as we approach November 2008, the burning question has been and will remain: What will it be? The historic opportunity to elect the first woman or first African American male as president of the United States.
There are few white women for whom I have more respect than Gloria Steinem, an ideological Godmother of the women's movement. In a recent op-ed column in the New York Times about the Obama vs. Clinton contest for the Democratic Party's nominee for President of the United States ("Women Are Never Front-Runners," January 8, 2008), Ms. Steinem's lifelong advocacy for gender equality appears to have become politically transformed into an advocacy of gender preferential treatment or implicit "female entitlement."
And here's a critique of Hillary's campaign and her use of the " race card " or her claims that Obama is too naive , too inexperienced , too idealistic and doesn't understand the complexities of working in Washington . Does she believe that because of REALPOLITIK one should abandon all sense of fair-play, justice and integrity in order to win a few votes while selling out America's ideals . Is Hillary concerned that on certain issues he may be less interested in compromising with the 'White Elite ' and therefore not be an effective president .
Maybe Obama would give more importance to certain issues or come at these issues from a different perspective than a 'White upper-class woman ' or a "White Upper-Class Man ' such as poverty, unemployment , homelessness, the disparity between the richest Americans and the working poor. Maybe Obama would see helping out the victims of Hurricane Katrina as a priority or that a new perspective should be brought to how to deal with crime or the illegal drug trade and use.For instance when it comes to laws dealing with drugs there are some oddities in the laws that have been passed and which discriminate against black people and the poor.For example harsher penalties are handed out possession of 'crack-cocaine 'as compared to the penalties for possession of 'cocaine '. Crack-cocaine is stereotyped as being a drug primarily used by Black people and the poor whereas 'cocaine' is characterized as a drug of choice by 'white middle-class ' Americans '.
Anyway here some articles for food for thought when trying to decide these complex issues:
Playing the Race Card Against Obama,Jan 15, 2008 By Eugene Robinson
A new Washington Post-ABC News poll shows that black Democrats nationwide now support Barack Obama over Hillary Clinton for the presidential nomination by nearly 2 to 1. This striking reversal—a month ago, Clinton held a big lead among African-Americans—is perhaps why race has suddenly become such a hot issue in a campaign that previously had dodged the subject.
It was never realistic to think that race—or gender, for that matter—would stay out of a contest starring the first woman and the first African-American with realistic hopes of becoming president.
Still, it’s surprising that the Clinton campaign has been so aggressive in keeping the race issue alive. On “Meet the Press,” Clinton didn’t just seek to explain her remarks about the Rev. Martin Luther King Jr.’s role in landmark civil rights legislation (she said it took a president to bring about real action) or Bill’s “fairy tale” crack about Obama’s record on the Iraq war (which some African-Americans took as a dismissal of Obama’s candidacy as mere fantasy). Instead, she went on the attack, accusing the Obama campaign of “deliberately distorting” her words in a way that was “unfair and unwarranted.”
Is it possible that accusing Obama and his campaign of playing the race card might create doubt in the minds of the moderate, independent white voters who now seem so enamored of the young black senator? Might that be the idea?
Yes, that’s a cynical view. But history is history.
Huffington Post
The Real Case Against Hillary Clinton by Cenk Uygur January 13, 2008
So, I want to focus on the one overwhelming problem with Hillary Clinton.
She claims that George W. Bush is the worst president we've ever had. Yet in her entire time in the Senate she has never led one successful fight against him. She has either lost every legislative battle on Iraq, or worse yet, been complicit. The vote to authorize the war was one thing, but how about all of the votes to continue and support Bush's war for all of the remaining years? Let alone every other issue on which Bush got exactly what he wanted, up to and including this year, when the Democrats and Senator Clinton were theoretically in charge.
I understand that leaders are supposed to lead. Yet, I have never seen Senator Clinton lead her fellow Democrats in a successful challenge of President Bush. Never. That's a pretty awful record.
Now, it would be one thing if George Bush was a popular president who was hard to defeat politically. But in fact, he is the opposite. He is the most deeply unpopular president of our lifetimes. And Hillary Clinton kept getting her ass kicked by that guy.
That's the real criticism that should be leveled against Hillary Clinton. Yet I have almost never seen anyone make this point on TV. Part of the reason for that, of course, is because her opponents, Barack Obama and John Edwards did no better in their time in the Senate. So, they are embarrassed into an awkward silence on the matter.
The reason I hold Senator Clinton to a higher standard, other than the fact that she has been there longer, is that she had the biggest name recognition and could have led her fellow Democrats -- but chose not to. Instead she chose accommodation and capitulation. That's a record worth criticizing, if anyone ever got around to it.
Erica Jong We Deserve What We Get, january 13, 2008
This column is not about Hillary vs. Obama vs. Edwards. The truth is if I had the choice I'd vote for Dennis Kucinich because he's against the war, for the impeachment of war criminals in government, smart on the environment and the economy, and he has a sense of humor about UFOS. He's not afraid to joke about 'em for fear he'll be labeled a nutcase -- as indeed he was.
But I don't have that option. Kucinich represents my views, but he only got 1% in New Hampshire. Too bad.
I want to talk not about candidates but about our media turning every presidential election into a high school popularity contest. And we let them get away with it. And we don't stop Rupert Murdoch, Clear Channel, Disney, GE, Sumner Redstone and a few others from owning all the media all the time.
Our magazines and newspapers are so dumbed down that they never discuss issues, only stereotype or attack or puff up candidates -- and all for the most idiotic things -- like their marriages, which in truth we know nothing about -- or their weight or their clothes or their hair. They don't discuss brains, intelligence, psychological maturity, but only who's up or down in the polls, cuter in photos, who misted up, cried or didn't cry, said "my friends" like Reagan or mimicked Bill Clinton's style or JFK's or whomever's. Our press is a disgrace.
We never discuss psychological depth because hey, who cares if the president's a bomb-happy dry-drunk trying to play out an Oedipal war with his father? We never talk about people being tested in power or how steady they are or whether they read books or understand what they read because we judge them on their looks. Or one idiotic sound byte, taken out of context.
Bush was considered a good ole boy and Gore was a considered a nerd. Now Edwards cares too much about his hair, Hillary "cried" in the press--though she didn't cry in reality. But we live in this parallel universe where there is no reality. Obama? Who knows who he is? A brilliant writer, yes, a cute young guy, yes, a progressive, we think. But who really knows? I give him the benefit of the doubt. Why not? But what a stupid way to choose a President!
and in a response to American feminists who believe their struggle for equal rights is comparable to that of Black American men and women who faced immoral yet legal segregation into the 1960s and lynchings which were legal up until the 1940s and that the KKK did whatever they wished with little in the way of consequence and that even now Black Americans are disproportionately represented in the prisons in America though they commit proportionately the same number of crimes as whites . And why are the majority of men on death-row black though whites commit just as many murders as black Americans :
Huffington Post Clarence B.Jones Clinton vs. Obama: Lest We Forget, January 15, 2008
The Clinton vs. Obama contest for the Democratic ticket of the upcoming residential race raises some provocative issues when reflecting on the Women's Movement and the African American community. So much so that a recent comment by Senator Hillary Clinton about it taking President Lyndon B. Johnson's signing of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 for Dr. King's dream to be realized ("It took a president to get it done," stated Senator Clinton) was viewed by many as racially insensitive and a major gaffe. The comment has further sparked a national debate and has become, for now, a focal point of an already white hot, volatile political contest. It's no surprise that Dr. King's name and the Civil Rights Movement have been invoked into this discussion. I suspect that it won't be the last time either. Aside from Abraham Lincoln and the Emancipation Proclamation, Dr. King, with whom I worked closely as personal counsel, advisor and draft speechwriter for much of the Civil Rights Movement, may have done more to achieve social, political and economic justice in America than any other event or person in the previous 400 years. So, as we approach November 2008, the burning question has been and will remain: What will it be? The historic opportunity to elect the first woman or first African American male as president of the United States.
Further, the forefathers and foremothers of white middle class women in America did not endure the Middle Passage, chattel slavery by predecessor governments to our current government, the failure of Reconstruction, segregation, and years of racial injustice in our country. African-Americans are the heirs of a past of rope, fire and murder, sanctioned by institutionalized racism throughout the history of our country. As such, the election of an African American male to the presidency of the United States, under the reality of this unique American experience, is or would not be any less of an event or "historical first" than the election of a middle class white woman as President of the United States.
Which brings me to Senator Clinton's recent comments, presumably, to contrast her qualifications for president with those of Senator Obama, comparing herself to President Lyndon Johnson with the words, "It took a president to get it done." My longevity as a personal counsel and a draft speech writer for my beloved friend, Martin Luther King, Jr., has blessed me with the memory and the obligation of a living witness. The challenge confronting me and others, who worked with Dr. King, is how to set the record straight without appearing to third parties, especially the media, to be playing the so-called "race card". The absence of such raced based politics is what may be part of the unexpected broad appeal of the Obama candidacy.
I would like to remind all the candidates that this is the week of Dr. King's 79th birthday. Distorted application or misappropriation of his legacy for self serving political purposes by any candidate besmirches this legacy. Less there be some question about the roles of Martin Luther King and President Lyndon Johnson, let me "make it plain": the passage of the 1964 Civil Rights Act was not principally because of President Lyndon B. Johnson. It was because of Martin Luther King, Jr. LBJ was only responding to what Martin often said, quoting Victor Hugo in Les Miserables, that "There is one thing stronger than all the armies in the world and that is an idea whose time has come." The passage of the 1964 Civil Rights Act was "an idea whose time had come"; a direct result of those hundreds of thousands of people marching in the streets across our country under Dr. King's leadership and not because "it. took a president to get it done."
take care,
GORD.
No comments:
Post a Comment