Black American News
How Hillary Clinton Won Pennsylvania
Democratic presidential hopeful Sen. Hillary Clinton (D-NY) cheers during her primary night celebration
The Clinton’s have pulled out all stops to keep race on the table. The most recent instance of that is when they sent their black friend, Bob Johnson, to restate the racist rant of Geraldine Ferraro. As if a messenger in dark face, changed the nature of the racially negating and limiting message.
Just what is the meaning of Geraldine Ferraro’s message? Most of us thought that Geraldine Ferraro was talking about affirmative action. That she was saying there’s something about being black that gave Barack an advantage, and because we though, like Barack said, that it was “absurd,” we left it with our indignation, but not much thought. But I think we missed the point they were trying to make, so they sent Bob Johnson, to say it again.
When Bob Johnson showed up to repeat Geraldine Ferraro’s message, he used a hypothetical to highlight something that was not in the original message, namely, if a white person was running for president, “would he start off with 90 percent of the black vote?” Which presupposes that’s what Barack started out with, when that’s not true. Leading up to the primaries, 57 percent of black voters favored Hillary, while only 33 percent favored Barack. But by the time the Clintons reached the South Carolina primary, they had diminished Martin Luther King’s contribution to civil rights, characterized the black vote as for “pride,” racialized Barack’s political success, and were under suspicion for mailings that falsely claimed Barack is a Muslim. At the end of all that, Barack Obama had 80% of the black vote.
Bob Johnson knew that Barack Obama didn’t start out with 90% of the black vote, so why did he say that? And why did he repeat Geraldine Ferraro’s racial claim? Because it furthered the racial idea that the Clintons were trying to communicate, namely, that African Americans are voting racially, and white Americans should do the same . . .
Because Geraldine Ferraro’s comments and language were highly racialized, and typical of a certain racial idea, we quickly concluded the obvious, namely, a claim that an African American obtained something beneficial because of his race, had to mean, what it has always meant, that he received something undeserved. So Bob Johnson was sent to clear up the confusion. Looking like the fox in the chicken coop, peering out from under shifty eyes, and speaking from a twisted mouth, he gushed, “it’s not like he didn’t deserve it . . .”
So Bob Johnson restated, for the Clintons, the idea that Barack Obama’s success was the product of racial voting, by falsely stating that African Americans gave Barack Obama 90% of their votes, before they knew anything about him. He went on to characterize the racial attitude, on Barack’s behalf as aggressive, suggesting that African Americans, who support Hillary, are being pressured to reject her in favor of Barack. Then he spiced it up by suggesting that African Americans are in such a tither about Barack’s candidacy, until they can’t be “rational,” and white people aren’t allowed to talk about it.
Bob Johnson wasn’t the only performer in the Clinton’s bag of tricks, on the eve of the Pennsylvania primary. CNN can always be counted on to carry the Clintons ideological theme, to the public.
For New Hampshire, CNN devised a racist report including Baracks African grandmother, falsely claiming that she did not want her son to marry a white woman, and expressing dismay that a future president of the United States could come from a “Kenyan grandmother,” code for the N word? They also flashed, Hillary’s teary moment, in agnosia, and brought us the Hillary show on “sexism,” involving a man, sporting a Hillary sticker, who, along with his friend, shouted, “iron our shirts.” And the Clinton theme, spoken by Hillary, was announced, “Sexism is alive and well,” and two social ideas were activated: racial rejection and gender oppression.
For Ohio, CNN rolled the drumbeat for a seeming defection, involving an Obama advisor and some Canadians, in which it was claimed that Barack wasn’t serious about NAFTA reform. Long after it was established as a lie, CNN repeated reported it as if it was true. Meanwhile, at every opportunity, CNN identified Barack’s support racially, activating two social ideas: suspicion and racial alienation.
For Pennsylvania, CNN continued to highlight African Americans as Baracks base of support, using the map analysis of voting trends, for increasing opportunities to do so. Then CNN went to work to heighten the implication of the Clinton theme, namely, that white people should vote racially:
CNN also encouraged white seniors in Pennsylvania to consider African Americans as trouble makers, as part of their decision making process. CNN accomplished this through a report on a senior couple, who were Hillary supporters. After the couple talked about why they intended to vote for Hillary, CNN voiced in, “seniors are part of a generation that has experienced racial problems.” The message: Vote Hillary or for a member of that group that you had trouble with . . .
Finally, CNN encouraged white people in Pennsylvania to vote racially, by highlighting the idea that black people are voting racially. CNN used Bob Johnson to tell the lie that African Americans immediately supported Barack Obama, without question, when they were fully aware that African Americans overwhelmingly supported the Clintons, before their racial gaffes. Bob Johnson was indulged to perpetrate lies and racial stereotypes, as well as the false assertion that African Americans are voting racially, and the inference that, white Americans should do the same, for Hillary.
Bill Clinton is a master of social manipulation. He has single handedly pulled off, what maybe the most extensive, manipulated, racial divide, in America’s history. First, He tried to racialize Barack, while holding onto the African American vote. But when his antics caused African Americans to desert Hillary, he went back to the drawing board and defined the voting pattern of African Americans, as racial.
His first racial description of the African American vote was for “pride.” Then his surrogate, Geraldine Ferraro, gave form to the concept, by describing Barack Obama’s success as something akin to a racial gift, and she announced that it made him “so lucky to be who he is.” However, there were challenges to the pride thing, so Bill Clinton gave the African American vote, a new racial name. It became a vote for “the first African American with a real chance to win.”
The concept of racial voting by African Americans, didn’t take hold through Geraldine Ferraro’s efforts, because her delivery was so racially explosive, until our reaction prevented us from understanding what she meant. Then the heat went up on racial comments by Clinton surrogates, until it occurred to them to deliver their message in dark face. So when they really needed the racial voting message spoken, on the eve of the Pennsylvania primary, they trotted out Bill’s black friend, Bob Johnson, to repeat Geraldine Ferraro’s message, along with the caveat, that white people can’t talk about it, and the “explanation,” “It’s not like he didn’t deserve it.”
Inhibiting race talk is very disturbing to the Clinton agenda since, racially provocative words have to be repeated, often, to trigger the unconscious racial ideas in people. Hence, the Clinton complaints, through Bill and surrogates, about challenges to racial talk.
After the announcement by Bill’s black friend, Bob Johnson, that white people can’t talk about race, Bill tested the waters, by declaring that Barack Obama played the race card on him - two months ago . . . Which is not unlike Bob Johnson’s claim, that it took him a month, to confirm Geraldine Ferraro words. Both men, talking race, on the eve of the Pennsylvania primary— It’s not about anything Barack did, two months ago. It’s not about what Geraldine Ferraro said, a month ago— It’s about furthering a racial agenda, that cannot be accomplished, if they can’t talk race.
A CNN interview of people exiting the polls, evidenced that Barack’s minister, and Barack’s words about small town Pennsylvania, was not on the minds of the voters. The three people interviewed, voted for Hillary, and they described votes manufactured, in the racialized environment, necessary to promote Hillary’s success.
One man said, he voted for Hillary because Barack has a chip on his shoulder. Who could look at Hillary’s rantings and Barack’s calm, and conclude that Barack is the one with a chip on his shoulder? Not anyone who’s paying attention. This man “heard” the Clinton’s claim of racial division, and he lined up, racially.
A woman said she voted for Hillary because she really doesn’t know Barack, so she voted for what she knows. That is the essence of the Clinton strategy, racialize Barack (make him unknown), then talk about him as dishonest, chastise him - like he is a child, raise questions about his religion, and even though he continues to look good, just like that unknown entree on a restaurant menu, when challenged, we go with what we “know.”
The last voter was a man who said that he voted for Hillary because she would be ready to go on day one. He is the only one, who gave as a reason for voting for Hillary, something that Hillary says about herself. Consequently, If these Hillary voters are exemplary, then 2 out of 3 people, who voted for Hillary in Pennsylvania, probably would have voted for Barack, if they had not been made uncomfortable, about doing so.
The Clintons “speak” to our unconscious, prompting us to see Barack racially, and not as he is. The majority of Americans actually want Barack Obama to become president, but deep in the recesses, of their unconscious minds, there is a wealth of racial misinformation, and beliefs, that the Clintons are stirring up.
If we don’t consciously address issues of race in America, soon, we may loose our last best chance to restore America’s democracy, and to return America, to the people.
POST COMMENTS BELOW:
OpEdNews.com
http://www.opednews.com/articles/opedne_hargrove_080424_how_hillary_clinton_.htm
Possible Hillary Clinton Running Mates
Choosing a running mate for Senator Hillary Clinton may be a theoretical exercise, as the smart money is on an Obama nomination. But Senator Clinton may still win by hook or crook, so choosing the bottom half of the ticket is not exactly a waste of time.
First, one has to remember that any Vice President Senator Clinton might choose will be a traditional, ceremonial Vice President. The “real” partner in labor a President Hillary Clinton will have is named Bill Clinton. The nominal Vice President will be consigned to attending funerals and inquiring daily after the health of the President. The potential Vice President in a Hillary Clinton Administration would have to comfort himself with the idea that he would be a front runner to succeed Hillary Clinton as President.
There are three strategies Senator Clinton could employ to choose a running mate. The Southern Strategy, the African American strategy, and the War Hero Strategy. There are also a number of wild cards, should Hillary Clinton choose to be bold.
The Southern Strategy
Hillary Clinton could choose a southerner to try to pry open the red state, Solid GOP South. Candidates would include Senator Bill Nelson of Florida, Governor Phil Bredesen of Tennessee, Governor Mark Easley of North Carolina, and Senator Mark Pryor of Arkansas.
A variant of the Southern Strategy is to try to pick up a red state or defend a vulnerable blue state from outside the south. Senator Even Bayh of Indiana, Governor Ted Strickland of Ohio or Senator Russ Feingold of Wisconsin would be possible candidates for this approach.
The African American Strategy
Senator Hillary Clinton will likely have gotten the nomination by alienating a lot of African American supporters of Senator Barack Obama. She would therefore possibly feel the need to choose an African American to shore up her base. The obvious choice in that regard would be Senator Barack Obama himself, should he choose to accept the position, something that may be doubtful. Former Virginia Governor Doug Wilder and former Congressman Harold Ford Jr. are also possibilities. Wilder and Ford fit the Southern Strategy profile as well.
The War Hero/Veteran Strategy
Senator Hillary Clinton may opt to choose a war hero or at least a military veteran as her running mate, in order to counteract Senator John McCain’s war hero status. Candidates who fit this profile include Senator Jim Webb of Virginia (who also fits the Southern Strategy profile) and former Senator Max Cleland of Georgia (also a southerner), Senator John Kerry of Massachusetts would likely not be a good fit, even with his decorations, considering how he was savaged in the 2004 election; two north easterners would also not constitute a balanced ticket.
Wildcards
Some wildcard possibilities include Governor Bill Richardson of New Mexico, provided that he and the Clintons could settled their grudge over the Governor’s endorsement of Barack Obama, Senator Chuck Hagel of Nebraska, nominally a Republican but perhaps amenable to jumping parties, and retired General Wesley Clark, a Clinton ally who ran for President in 2004. Hagel and Clark fit the War Hero/Veteran Strategy, of course.
POST COMMENTS BELOW:
AssociatedContent.com
http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/696321/possible_hillary_clinton_running_mates.html
Endorsements and Watermelons: Can you really compare?
When I interviewed Philadelphia’s Mayor Michael Nutter a couple of weeks ago he seemed a bit uncomfortable with all the questions about why he endorsed Hillary Clinton. After all, Nutter is African American and finds himself at the center of a debate about whether high profile African Americans should automatically be endorsing Barack Obama.
At the time, I asked Nutter if he felt any pressure because of his color to back Barack Obama? He told me, “This is not a campaign for high school class president—this is the campaign for the President of the U.S. I’m only hoping voters will take a lot more factors in when voting than just the issue of race… I’m mostly under pressure from my constituents to make sure that potholes are getting filled, trash is getting picked up, and that the city is running well and proper. I understand those concerns but folks of Philadelphia, we just went through a mayor’s race, had three African-American candidates and two white candidates. I received the majority of votes of the African-American community and the white community—the first time any African-American has done that in a mayor’s race.”
Any chance he’ll change his mind? Nope. He told me, “People in the city know once I make a commitment to do something I’m going to follow through and do it. If I say I’m endorsing a candidate, I have a good reason for it and they know I’m not going to change my mind.”
He quickly added,”I never asked anyone to vote for me as mayor because I’m African-American. I asked people to vote for me because I had really good ideas, because I had experience, because I had a demonstrated track record of judgment to run this city. I would certainly not expect white candidates ask whites to vote for them because of their race…
Well, things have certainly heated up for Mayor Nutter since our interview. Just today, the Philadelphia Inquirer posted these comments from the Mayor: “There are no automatics in life that all black people are going to support a single black candidate in a race,” Nutter said. “All black folks don’t eat fried chicken or eat watermelon. When do we make some progress here?”
The Mayor is apparently bristling over what a big deal is being made about race in the campaign. He said last week, “I didn’t see people running up to Ted Kennedy, saying, ‘Are you getting any pressure from supporting Sen. Obama, any backlash?’ No one is asking the white elected officials if they are getting pressure for supporting the black guy.”
Some history here you should know: When Nutter was running for Mayor last year, Obama took time out of his presidential run to endorse Nutter’s opponent U.S. Rep. Chaka Fattah. It’s been suggested the Mayor has “bruised feelings.”
Still, Nutter has said, if Clinton does not win the nomination, “then the next day I am going to be out there, trying to help Sen. Obama.”
He told me, “I have tremendous respect for Obama. He has done some really good things as a candidate and I only have the utmost respect for him.”
POST COMMENTS BELOW:
CNN.com
http://ac360.blogs.cnn.com/2008/04/07/endorsements-and-watermelons-can-you-really-compare/
Mayor Of Philadelphia:”All black folks don’t eat fried chicken or eat watermelon. …
Democratic presidential hopeful Sen. Hillary Clinton (D-NY) cheers during her primary night celebration
The Clinton’s have pulled out all stops to keep race on the table. The most recent instance of that is when they sent their black friend, Bob Johnson, to restate the racist rant of Geraldine Ferraro. As if a messenger in dark face, changed the nature of the racially negating and limiting message.
Just what is the meaning of Geraldine Ferraro’s message? Most of us thought that Geraldine Ferraro was talking about affirmative action. That she was saying there’s something about being black that gave Barack an advantage, and because we though, like Barack said, that it was “absurd,” we left it with our indignation, but not much thought. But I think we missed the point they were trying to make, so they sent Bob Johnson, to say it again.
When Bob Johnson showed up to repeat Geraldine Ferraro’s message, he used a hypothetical to highlight something that was not in the original message, namely, if a white person was running for president, “would he start off with 90 percent of the black vote?” Which presupposes that’s what Barack started out with, when that’s not true. Leading up to the primaries, 57 percent of black voters favored Hillary, while only 33 percent favored Barack. But by the time the Clintons reached the South Carolina primary, they had diminished Martin Luther King’s contribution to civil rights, characterized the black vote as for “pride,” racialized Barack’s political success, and were under suspicion for mailings that falsely claimed Barack is a Muslim. At the end of all that, Barack Obama had 80% of the black vote.
Bob Johnson knew that Barack Obama didn’t start out with 90% of the black vote, so why did he say that? And why did he repeat Geraldine Ferraro’s racial claim? Because it furthered the racial idea that the Clintons were trying to communicate, namely, that African Americans are voting racially, and white Americans should do the same . . .
Because Geraldine Ferraro’s comments and language were highly racialized, and typical of a certain racial idea, we quickly concluded the obvious, namely, a claim that an African American obtained something beneficial because of his race, had to mean, what it has always meant, that he received something undeserved. So Bob Johnson was sent to clear up the confusion. Looking like the fox in the chicken coop, peering out from under shifty eyes, and speaking from a twisted mouth, he gushed, “it’s not like he didn’t deserve it . . .”
So Bob Johnson restated, for the Clintons, the idea that Barack Obama’s success was the product of racial voting, by falsely stating that African Americans gave Barack Obama 90% of their votes, before they knew anything about him. He went on to characterize the racial attitude, on Barack’s behalf as aggressive, suggesting that African Americans, who support Hillary, are being pressured to reject her in favor of Barack. Then he spiced it up by suggesting that African Americans are in such a tither about Barack’s candidacy, until they can’t be “rational,” and white people aren’t allowed to talk about it.
Bob Johnson wasn’t the only performer in the Clinton’s bag of tricks, on the eve of the Pennsylvania primary. CNN can always be counted on to carry the Clintons ideological theme, to the public.
For New Hampshire, CNN devised a racist report including Baracks African grandmother, falsely claiming that she did not want her son to marry a white woman, and expressing dismay that a future president of the United States could come from a “Kenyan grandmother,” code for the N word? They also flashed, Hillary’s teary moment, in agnosia, and brought us the Hillary show on “sexism,” involving a man, sporting a Hillary sticker, who, along with his friend, shouted, “iron our shirts.” And the Clinton theme, spoken by Hillary, was announced, “Sexism is alive and well,” and two social ideas were activated: racial rejection and gender oppression.
For Ohio, CNN rolled the drumbeat for a seeming defection, involving an Obama advisor and some Canadians, in which it was claimed that Barack wasn’t serious about NAFTA reform. Long after it was established as a lie, CNN repeated reported it as if it was true. Meanwhile, at every opportunity, CNN identified Barack’s support racially, activating two social ideas: suspicion and racial alienation.
For Pennsylvania, CNN continued to highlight African Americans as Baracks base of support, using the map analysis of voting trends, for increasing opportunities to do so. Then CNN went to work to heighten the implication of the Clinton theme, namely, that white people should vote racially:
CNN also encouraged white seniors in Pennsylvania to consider African Americans as trouble makers, as part of their decision making process. CNN accomplished this through a report on a senior couple, who were Hillary supporters. After the couple talked about why they intended to vote for Hillary, CNN voiced in, “seniors are part of a generation that has experienced racial problems.” The message: Vote Hillary or for a member of that group that you had trouble with . . .
Finally, CNN encouraged white people in Pennsylvania to vote racially, by highlighting the idea that black people are voting racially. CNN used Bob Johnson to tell the lie that African Americans immediately supported Barack Obama, without question, when they were fully aware that African Americans overwhelmingly supported the Clintons, before their racial gaffes. Bob Johnson was indulged to perpetrate lies and racial stereotypes, as well as the false assertion that African Americans are voting racially, and the inference that, white Americans should do the same, for Hillary.
Bill Clinton is a master of social manipulation. He has single handedly pulled off, what maybe the most extensive, manipulated, racial divide, in America’s history. First, He tried to racialize Barack, while holding onto the African American vote. But when his antics caused African Americans to desert Hillary, he went back to the drawing board and defined the voting pattern of African Americans, as racial.
His first racial description of the African American vote was for “pride.” Then his surrogate, Geraldine Ferraro, gave form to the concept, by describing Barack Obama’s success as something akin to a racial gift, and she announced that it made him “so lucky to be who he is.” However, there were challenges to the pride thing, so Bill Clinton gave the African American vote, a new racial name. It became a vote for “the first African American with a real chance to win.”
The concept of racial voting by African Americans, didn’t take hold through Geraldine Ferraro’s efforts, because her delivery was so racially explosive, until our reaction prevented us from understanding what she meant. Then the heat went up on racial comments by Clinton surrogates, until it occurred to them to deliver their message in dark face. So when they really needed the racial voting message spoken, on the eve of the Pennsylvania primary, they trotted out Bill’s black friend, Bob Johnson, to repeat Geraldine Ferraro’s message, along with the caveat, that white people can’t talk about it, and the “explanation,” “It’s not like he didn’t deserve it.”
Inhibiting race talk is very disturbing to the Clinton agenda since, racially provocative words have to be repeated, often, to trigger the unconscious racial ideas in people. Hence, the Clinton complaints, through Bill and surrogates, about challenges to racial talk.
After the announcement by Bill’s black friend, Bob Johnson, that white people can’t talk about race, Bill tested the waters, by declaring that Barack Obama played the race card on him - two months ago . . . Which is not unlike Bob Johnson’s claim, that it took him a month, to confirm Geraldine Ferraro words. Both men, talking race, on the eve of the Pennsylvania primary— It’s not about anything Barack did, two months ago. It’s not about what Geraldine Ferraro said, a month ago— It’s about furthering a racial agenda, that cannot be accomplished, if they can’t talk race.
A CNN interview of people exiting the polls, evidenced that Barack’s minister, and Barack’s words about small town Pennsylvania, was not on the minds of the voters. The three people interviewed, voted for Hillary, and they described votes manufactured, in the racialized environment, necessary to promote Hillary’s success.
One man said, he voted for Hillary because Barack has a chip on his shoulder. Who could look at Hillary’s rantings and Barack’s calm, and conclude that Barack is the one with a chip on his shoulder? Not anyone who’s paying attention. This man “heard” the Clinton’s claim of racial division, and he lined up, racially.
A woman said she voted for Hillary because she really doesn’t know Barack, so she voted for what she knows. That is the essence of the Clinton strategy, racialize Barack (make him unknown), then talk about him as dishonest, chastise him - like he is a child, raise questions about his religion, and even though he continues to look good, just like that unknown entree on a restaurant menu, when challenged, we go with what we “know.”
The last voter was a man who said that he voted for Hillary because she would be ready to go on day one. He is the only one, who gave as a reason for voting for Hillary, something that Hillary says about herself. Consequently, If these Hillary voters are exemplary, then 2 out of 3 people, who voted for Hillary in Pennsylvania, probably would have voted for Barack, if they had not been made uncomfortable, about doing so.
The Clintons “speak” to our unconscious, prompting us to see Barack racially, and not as he is. The majority of Americans actually want Barack Obama to become president, but deep in the recesses, of their unconscious minds, there is a wealth of racial misinformation, and beliefs, that the Clintons are stirring up.
If we don’t consciously address issues of race in America, soon, we may loose our last best chance to restore America’s democracy, and to return America, to the people.
POST COMMENTS BELOW:
OpEdNews.com
http://www.opednews.com/articles/opedne_hargrove_080424_how_hillary_clinton_.htm
Choosing a running mate for Senator Hillary Clinton may be a theoretical exercise, as the smart money is on an Obama nomination. But Senator Clinton may still win by hook or crook, so choosing the bottom half of the ticket is not exactly a waste of time.
First, one has to remember that any Vice President Senator Clinton might choose will be a traditional, ceremonial Vice President. The “real” partner in labor a President Hillary Clinton will have is named Bill Clinton. The nominal Vice President will be consigned to attending funerals and inquiring daily after the health of the President. The potential Vice President in a Hillary Clinton Administration would have to comfort himself with the idea that he would be a front runner to succeed Hillary Clinton as President.
There are three strategies Senator Clinton could employ to choose a running mate. The Southern Strategy, the African American strategy, and the War Hero Strategy. There are also a number of wild cards, should Hillary Clinton choose to be bold.
The Southern Strategy
Hillary Clinton could choose a southerner to try to pry open the red state, Solid GOP South. Candidates would include Senator Bill Nelson of Florida, Governor Phil Bredesen of Tennessee, Governor Mark Easley of North Carolina, and Senator Mark Pryor of Arkansas.
A variant of the Southern Strategy is to try to pick up a red state or defend a vulnerable blue state from outside the south. Senator Even Bayh of Indiana, Governor Ted Strickland of Ohio or Senator Russ Feingold of Wisconsin would be possible candidates for this approach.
The African American Strategy
Senator Hillary Clinton will likely have gotten the nomination by alienating a lot of African American supporters of Senator Barack Obama. She would therefore possibly feel the need to choose an African American to shore up her base. The obvious choice in that regard would be Senator Barack Obama himself, should he choose to accept the position, something that may be doubtful. Former Virginia Governor Doug Wilder and former Congressman Harold Ford Jr. are also possibilities. Wilder and Ford fit the Southern Strategy profile as well.
The War Hero/Veteran Strategy
Senator Hillary Clinton may opt to choose a war hero or at least a military veteran as her running mate, in order to counteract Senator John McCain’s war hero status. Candidates who fit this profile include Senator Jim Webb of Virginia (who also fits the Southern Strategy profile) and former Senator Max Cleland of Georgia (also a southerner), Senator John Kerry of Massachusetts would likely not be a good fit, even with his decorations, considering how he was savaged in the 2004 election; two north easterners would also not constitute a balanced ticket.
Wildcards
Some wildcard possibilities include Governor Bill Richardson of New Mexico, provided that he and the Clintons could settled their grudge over the Governor’s endorsement of Barack Obama, Senator Chuck Hagel of Nebraska, nominally a Republican but perhaps amenable to jumping parties, and retired General Wesley Clark, a Clinton ally who ran for President in 2004. Hagel and Clark fit the War Hero/Veteran Strategy, of course.
POST COMMENTS BELOW:
AssociatedContent.com
http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/696321/possible_hillary_clinton_running_mates.html
Endorsements and Watermelons: Can you really compare?
When I interviewed Philadelphia’s Mayor Michael Nutter a couple of weeks ago he seemed a bit uncomfortable with all the questions about why he endorsed Hillary Clinton. After all, Nutter is African American and finds himself at the center of a debate about whether high profile African Americans should automatically be endorsing Barack Obama.
At the time, I asked Nutter if he felt any pressure because of his color to back Barack Obama? He told me, “This is not a campaign for high school class president—this is the campaign for the President of the U.S. I’m only hoping voters will take a lot more factors in when voting than just the issue of race… I’m mostly under pressure from my constituents to make sure that potholes are getting filled, trash is getting picked up, and that the city is running well and proper. I understand those concerns but folks of Philadelphia, we just went through a mayor’s race, had three African-American candidates and two white candidates. I received the majority of votes of the African-American community and the white community—the first time any African-American has done that in a mayor’s race.”
Any chance he’ll change his mind? Nope. He told me, “People in the city know once I make a commitment to do something I’m going to follow through and do it. If I say I’m endorsing a candidate, I have a good reason for it and they know I’m not going to change my mind.”
He quickly added,”I never asked anyone to vote for me as mayor because I’m African-American. I asked people to vote for me because I had really good ideas, because I had experience, because I had a demonstrated track record of judgment to run this city. I would certainly not expect white candidates ask whites to vote for them because of their race…
Well, things have certainly heated up for Mayor Nutter since our interview. Just today, the Philadelphia Inquirer posted these comments from the Mayor: “There are no automatics in life that all black people are going to support a single black candidate in a race,” Nutter said. “All black folks don’t eat fried chicken or eat watermelon. When do we make some progress here?”
The Mayor is apparently bristling over what a big deal is being made about race in the campaign. He said last week, “I didn’t see people running up to Ted Kennedy, saying, ‘Are you getting any pressure from supporting Sen. Obama, any backlash?’ No one is asking the white elected officials if they are getting pressure for supporting the black guy.”
Some history here you should know: When Nutter was running for Mayor last year, Obama took time out of his presidential run to endorse Nutter’s opponent U.S. Rep. Chaka Fattah. It’s been suggested the Mayor has “bruised feelings.”
Still, Nutter has said, if Clinton does not win the nomination, “then the next day I am going to be out there, trying to help Sen. Obama.”
He told me, “I have tremendous respect for Obama. He has done some really good things as a candidate and I only have the utmost respect for him.”
POST COMMENTS BELOW:
CNN.com
http://ac360.blogs.cnn.com/2008/04/07/endorsements-and-watermelons-can-you-really-compare/
Mayor Of Philadelphia:”All black folks don’t eat fried chicken or eat watermelon. …
When I interviewed Philadelphia’s Mayor Michael Nutter a couple of weeks ago he seemed a bit uncomfortable with all the questions about why he endorsed Hillary Clinton. After all, Nutter is African American and finds himself at the center of a debate about whether high profile African Americans should automatically be endorsing Barack Obama.
At the time, I asked Nutter if he felt any pressure because of his color to back Barack Obama? He told me, “This is not a campaign for high school class president—this is the campaign for the President of the U.S. I’m only hoping voters will take a lot more factors in when voting than just the issue of race… I’m mostly under pressure from my constituents to make sure that potholes are getting filled, trash is getting picked up, and that the city is running well and proper. I understand those concerns but folks of Philadelphia, we just went through a mayor’s race, had three African-American candidates and two white candidates. I received the majority of votes of the African-American community and the white community—the first time any African-American has done that in a mayor’s race.”
Any chance he’ll change his mind? Nope. He told me, “People in the city know once I make a commitment to do something I’m going to follow through and do it. If I say I’m endorsing a candidate, I have a good reason for it and they know I’m not going to change my mind.”
He quickly added,”I never asked anyone to vote for me as mayor because I’m African-American. I asked people to vote for me because I had really good ideas, because I had experience, because I had a demonstrated track record of judgment to run this city. I would certainly not expect white candidates ask whites to vote for them because of their race…
Well, things have certainly heated up for Mayor Nutter since our interview. Just today, the Philadelphia Inquirer posted these comments from the Mayor: “There are no automatics in life that all black people are going to support a single black candidate in a race,” Nutter said. “All black folks don’t eat fried chicken or eat watermelon. When do we make some progress here?”
The Mayor is apparently bristling over what a big deal is being made about race in the campaign. He said last week, “I didn’t see people running up to Ted Kennedy, saying, ‘Are you getting any pressure from supporting Sen. Obama, any backlash?’ No one is asking the white elected officials if they are getting pressure for supporting the black guy.”
Some history here you should know: When Nutter was running for Mayor last year, Obama took time out of his presidential run to endorse Nutter’s opponent U.S. Rep. Chaka Fattah. It’s been suggested the Mayor has “bruised feelings.”
Still, Nutter has said, if Clinton does not win the nomination, “then the next day I am going to be out there, trying to help Sen. Obama.”
He told me, “I have tremendous respect for Obama. He has done some really good things as a candidate and I only have the utmost respect for him.”
POST COMMENTS BELOW:
CNN.com
http://ac360.blogs.cnn.com/2008/04/07/endorsements-and-watermelons-can-you-really-compare/
Wells Fargo: Minnesota’s No. 2 employer is No. 1 for targeting minorities with high-cost loans
Wells Fargo, Minnesota’s second-largest employer, holds the title of the largest financial institution in the state. The banking giant has what it calls banking stores (180 in Minnesota), mortgage stores and financial stores dotting every area of the Land of 10,000 Lakes. But Wells Fargo also holds another title: the institution most likely to target minorities with high-cost (subprime) loans, regardless of income.
In fact, in a multi-state study last year by a variety of nonpartisan organizations, data indicated that Wells Fargo was 10 times more likely to sell a high-cost loan to African-American borrowers than whites. In Chicago, the city to suffer from the biggest racial disparities, 35 percent of African-Americans received high-cost loans (again, regardless of income) versus only 2.5 percent of whites. And how did the nefarious Countrywide Financial fare in this study? That financial institution had an African-American/white disparity ratio of 4.9, or half of that of Wells Fargo.
Wells Fargo’s practices have raised the hackles of residents and lawmakers across the country as of late: The city of Baltimore is suing the bank, claiming its lending practices unfairly targeted minorities. Sixty-five percent of Wells Fargo’s black customers in Baltimore received interest rates that were at least three percentage points higher than the federal benchmark, according to the New York Times. Earlier this year, Cleveland also sued Wells Fargo (along with a handful of other predatory lenders) for the subprime crisis that has resulted in a public nuisance in that foreclosure-decimated city. And in March, the Illinois Attorney General’s Office subpoenaed Wells Fargo to determine if the bank violated federal-lending and civil-rights laws by steering minorities into high-cost loans.
Wells Fargo doesn’t have nearly the presence in Illinois, Maryland or Ohio that it does here in Minnesota. And according to Geoff Smith, vice president of the Woodstock Institute, one of the economic organizations that authored the subprime-loan study, Wells Fargo consistently had some of the highest lending disparities in every market. (The Twin Cities did not appear in study.) If the company was engaging in targeting minorities with high-cost loans in Maryland, Smith notes, which has only about 2,000 Wells employees, it was quite likely doing it on a grander scale in Minnesota, where it has more than 20,000 employees. So why is it that such a major Minnesota lender is flying under the radar here and able to keep the appearance of clean hands? According to Smith, the bank’s large presence is one of the problems.
“One of the complications is the regulatory complexity of the banking system,” Smith says. “[State attorney generals] do not have authority over national banks. That is tied to federal regulatory agencies. And in the case of Wells Fargo, they have two sub holding companies: the bank and financial holdings. So in this case, it becomes more difficult to have authority over them. Having so many locations in Minnesota complicates things.”
But that doesn’t leave Wells Fargo off the hook. Brian Bergson, representative for Minnesota Attorney General Lori Swanson’s office, says that he cannot comment on complaints regarding Wells Fargo due to data privacy laws and that information is only made public once a case is closed. He did acknowledge, however, that he is aware of the study and the complaints.
For Smith, the biggest concern is that minority targeting happened at all. “Wells Fargo has a variety of products. They weren’t a pure subprime lender. But they still were more likely to target minorities with high-cost loans, even though they have both channels. Many people were offered teaser rates, and now their rates are doubling. If you look at what’s happening now because of it, it should be a major concern. It still concerns us, which is why we will continue to study what’s happening.”
POST COMMENTS BELOW:
TCDailyPlanet.net
Hillary and Race Relations: GOP Tactics that Threaten the Democratic Party
Wells Fargo, Minnesota’s second-largest employer, holds the title of the largest financial institution in the state. The banking giant has what it calls banking stores (180 in Minnesota), mortgage stores and financial stores dotting every area of the Land of 10,000 Lakes. But Wells Fargo also holds another title: the institution most likely to target minorities with high-cost (subprime) loans, regardless of income.
In fact, in a multi-state study last year by a variety of nonpartisan organizations, data indicated that Wells Fargo was 10 times more likely to sell a high-cost loan to African-American borrowers than whites. In Chicago, the city to suffer from the biggest racial disparities, 35 percent of African-Americans received high-cost loans (again, regardless of income) versus only 2.5 percent of whites. And how did the nefarious Countrywide Financial fare in this study? That financial institution had an African-American/white disparity ratio of 4.9, or half of that of Wells Fargo.
Wells Fargo’s practices have raised the hackles of residents and lawmakers across the country as of late: The city of Baltimore is suing the bank, claiming its lending practices unfairly targeted minorities. Sixty-five percent of Wells Fargo’s black customers in Baltimore received interest rates that were at least three percentage points higher than the federal benchmark, according to the New York Times. Earlier this year, Cleveland also sued Wells Fargo (along with a handful of other predatory lenders) for the subprime crisis that has resulted in a public nuisance in that foreclosure-decimated city. And in March, the Illinois Attorney General’s Office subpoenaed Wells Fargo to determine if the bank violated federal-lending and civil-rights laws by steering minorities into high-cost loans.
Wells Fargo doesn’t have nearly the presence in Illinois, Maryland or Ohio that it does here in Minnesota. And according to Geoff Smith, vice president of the Woodstock Institute, one of the economic organizations that authored the subprime-loan study, Wells Fargo consistently had some of the highest lending disparities in every market. (The Twin Cities did not appear in study.) If the company was engaging in targeting minorities with high-cost loans in Maryland, Smith notes, which has only about 2,000 Wells employees, it was quite likely doing it on a grander scale in Minnesota, where it has more than 20,000 employees. So why is it that such a major Minnesota lender is flying under the radar here and able to keep the appearance of clean hands? According to Smith, the bank’s large presence is one of the problems.
“One of the complications is the regulatory complexity of the banking system,” Smith says. “[State attorney generals] do not have authority over national banks. That is tied to federal regulatory agencies. And in the case of Wells Fargo, they have two sub holding companies: the bank and financial holdings. So in this case, it becomes more difficult to have authority over them. Having so many locations in Minnesota complicates things.”
But that doesn’t leave Wells Fargo off the hook. Brian Bergson, representative for Minnesota Attorney General Lori Swanson’s office, says that he cannot comment on complaints regarding Wells Fargo due to data privacy laws and that information is only made public once a case is closed. He did acknowledge, however, that he is aware of the study and the complaints.
For Smith, the biggest concern is that minority targeting happened at all. “Wells Fargo has a variety of products. They weren’t a pure subprime lender. But they still were more likely to target minorities with high-cost loans, even though they have both channels. Many people were offered teaser rates, and now their rates are doubling. If you look at what’s happening now because of it, it should be a major concern. It still concerns us, which is why we will continue to study what’s happening.”
POST COMMENTS BELOW:
TCDailyPlanet.net
As left-leaning Americans living in Italy, we’re often called upon by European friends to explain what happened to the America they once knew and loved. The theme of these inquiries is all too predictable: the mess in Iraq, a failed health care system, a tanking currency and a domestic economy that consistently snubs the average working person. The Bush/Cheney United States is no longer a model for western-style democracies, our friends tell us. With its hobbled economy and arrogant foreign policy, America has lost its claim to world leadership in every sense.
Until recently we felt we had at least one credible retort. The U.S., we asserted, is significantly more progressive than Europe in the area of race relations. In Europe, people of color are still routinely subjected to discrimination, publicly and privately, that most Americans would find backward and offensive. Compared to Europe, the U.S. is an enlightened society: We are far less likely to judge or be judged by race, religion or ethnicity; we’re more integrated. No one is surprised, or cares, if their boss, co-worker, professor, doctor or banker is black, brown, red, or yellow. The U.S. presidential race is a perfect example: Name a single European country, we’d say, where a politician like Barack Obama would be taken seriously as a national candidate, let alone win primary after primary.
But after watching this same presidential campaign during these past few weeks, we no longer feel our claim to these bragging rights is unassailable. In her desperation to win at any cost, during the month of March and now April, Hillary Clinton has disinterred an ugly American skeleton, one that most of us from the generation that came of age during the Civil Rights era hoped we had finally entombed: You can still frighten a lot of white Americans into voting against a black candidate — enough, anyway, to win a primary in a state like Ohio and perhaps Pennsylvania.
The Clinton campaign, its tinge of inevitability long vanished, has only one potent message left in its arsenal as Hillary slogs on to the convention. Cleverly packaged and cunningly encoded, the message is nonetheless simple: Obama can’t win a general election. Why? Because he happens to be (whisper) “a black man.” And, even if he says he’s a candidate that appeals to all Americans, we all know (smirk, smirk) that average white Americans (not the latte-sipping, Volvo-driving, Birkenstock-wearing types) just won’t vote for a black man for president. It’s not that they’re prejudiced; they’re just not yet “comfortable” with the idea.
So what’s a losing campaign to do? First, pigeon-hole Obama as the “black folks” candidate, who has no real appeal beyond a “narrow” segment of the electorate. Hence, we have überstrategist Mark Penn and Bill Clinton spinning ad nauseum that Obama is only winning because of African-American support and that his victories are, as such, insignificant compared to Hillary’s. In this new electoral math a la Clinton, black votes are no longer “separate but equal,” they’re actually worth less than white votes, a return, as it were, to the original valuation assigned in the Constitution to each slave: three-fifths of a white citizen. The subtext, even while cloaked as “electoral strategy,” is racist at its core: your vote doesn’t count if you are black and happen to live in a “red state.” Never mind that African Americans have been the most loyal Democratic constituency for more than forty years and that any Democratic nominee will need an enthusiastic and large minority turnout nationwide in order to win in November. And never mind that any thoughtful analysis of the results so far suggests that Obama may be assembling a new electoral coalition, a different one than the Clintons and other centrist Democrats have relied on for the past 20 years.
Next, remind everyone repeatedly just how uncomfortable some black people make the rest of us “average” Americans feel. Thus, the Obama campaign has found itself facing any number of over-blown controversies, such as the meaningless media dust-up over whether Michelle Obama was sufficiently patriotic when she said that for the first time in her adult life she was really proud of her country, or the Geraldine Ferraro incident in which Ferraro was allowed to paint herself as a victim of reverse discrimination after her tawdry attacks on Obama last month. To be fair, the Fox and MSNBC talking-heads are the source of many of these scurrilous assaults. But the Clinton team’s silence when such attacks are aired, especially in response to Ferraro, Hillary Clinton’s own finance chair, has been deafening.
As is often the case when racial bogymen are invoked, the tarnish applied to Obama is guilt by association — and in this application, Clinton’s brushstrokes are clearly visible. In Ohio, during a televised debate, we heard Senator Clinton complain that Obama wasn’t forceful enough in denouncing Louis Farrakhan, whose support Obama never sought and whom he had publicly repudiated. Now, in Pennsylvania Senator Clinton and surrogates have made the Jeremiah Wright issue an ongoing campaign theme, with Clinton piously announcing that she would never join Wright’s church. Guilt-by-association, of course, is a wonderful “wedge” issue. Nothing need be said overtly; the imagery is what counts. In this case, the notion is that if Obama’s pastor was an “angry” and “confrontational” (translated together as “scary”) black man, then Obama may actually be the second coming of H. Rap Brown. And, of course, there’s that Muslim middle name of his. And the picture of him in the head garb. And he studied the Koran. Do you really want a nominee like that?
There is much to lament here. First, this tactic works with some portion of white voters, suggesting that the racial gap in the U.S. still remains wide. Second, since it works, and since the entire Clinton strategy is to make Obama appear unelectable, we can expect plenty more of it during the coming weeks from Clinton and her surrogates. We are witnessing an astonishing spectacle: a Democratic presidential candidate, the wife of a former Democratic president who professes to have a deep connection with African Americans, condoning — if not actively exploiting — racial divisions and misunderstandings in order to win the nomination of a U.S. political party which has a half-century history of promoting racial equality.
In doing so, not only does the Hillary Clinton campaign repudiate the Democratic Party’s post-1960s history, it threatens to destroy the party’s chances of recapturing the White House. Indeed, there is talk that there will be a repeat of Chicago 1968 should Clinton lose the popular vote and pledged delegates, as seems quite likely, yet still “win” the nomination based on superdelegate support. But another historical comparison also comes to mind from 150 years earlier. At its 1852 presidential nominating convention, the Whig party split over the issue of slavery. Four years later, the national party ceased to exist, with the anti-slavery Whigs having joined the new Republican Party.
It would be an ironic coda to the Clintons’ supercilious boast that they have done more than any other couple to strengthen the Democratic Party if the result of Hillary’s campaign is not only to lose the general election but create an irreparable split within the Democratic Party itself. But that is where the divide-and-scare tactics that her handlers have borrowed so adeptly from the Republican playbook are headed. Should the superdelegates succumb to the pressures emanating from the Clinton campaign, hundreds of thousands of Obama supporters may feel much the same way McCarthy supporters and anti-war activists felt in 1968.
Hillary is betting that if she becomes the superdelegate nominee, blacks and liberals will have “no place else to go” and will fall into line. But if Hillary’s race-card politics make them feel sufficiently disenfranchised, these Obama supporters may abjure Hillary and sit out the general election altogether. Worse still for Democrats, they may see the party as no longer relevant: a moribund party hijacked by the Clintons’ ambition, one that lacks the vision so desperately needed to revive our democracy, a party better left behind and replaced with one built on a new politics of unity and hope.
POST COMMENTS HERE:
HuffingtonPost.com