|The Mothership |
Oh my god that's her! I was expecting some sort of parody.
Fuck the haterz. She's just a grandma trying to act "with it", yo.
|Maggot Brain |
Sock it to me?
The fact that so many black Americans like her so much is the only real racial disconnect I think I've ever experienced.
Well, enough to vote for her in an overwhelming majority (of primary voters), apparently, anyway.
Glen Ford, a former Black Panther, who helps run Black Agenda Report has you covered, white man. Let him explain it to you as to why black voters are voting or Hill-dawg en masse.
Pro-tip: It's straight up fear of the white man's party (read: Republicans).
TL;DR the link:
"But Bernie Sanders, whose domestic politics is a much closer fit with the historical and current Black world view, is not losing to Hillary because of his positions on the issues, or because Blacks trust in Clinton’s honesty and integrity (huge numbers don’t, in every demographic). It is also no longer the case that most Blacks are unfamiliar with Sanders’ platform. African Americans are, by some measures, more tuned in to the “news” than whites (although Blacks trust the media less). But they tune Sanders out, because their main purpose for voting in national elections is to keep the White Man’s Party, the Republicans, out of the White House, and believe Clinton has a better shot. Almost everything else is bullshit."
During the Bush years we had a president who did not care about black people. Never again.
When he was in office, Toni Morrison called Clinton "the first black president" and a lot of people didn't see the quote in context and realize that she wasn't making a comment about Clinton or his policies at all, she was drawing an analogy between the treatment of black citizens in the USA and the treatment of Clinton by the press and his peers during the Lewinskyscandal. The Clintons and others spun it into the whole "Friends Of the Blacks" business that we still see in the press today, despite Morrison herself openly rejecting that interpretation.
The quote in full:
"African-American men seemed to understand it right away. Years ago, in the middle of the Whitewater investigation, one heard the first murmurs: white skin notwithstanding, this is our first black President. Blacker than any actual black person who could ever be elected in our children’s lifetime. After all, Clinton displays almost every trope of blackness: single-parent household, born poor, working-class, saxophone-playing, McDonald’s-and-junk-food-loving boy from Arkansas. And when virtually all the African-American Clinton appointees began, one by one, to disappear, when the President’s body, his privacy, his unpoliced sexuality became the focus of the persecution, when he was metaphorically seized and body-searched, who could gainsay these black men who knew whereof they spoke? The message was clear: “No matter how smart you are, how hard you work, how much coin you earn for us, we will put you in your place or put you out of the place you have somehow, albeit with our permission, achieved. You will be fired from your job, sent away in disgrace, and—who knows?—maybe sentenced and jailed to boot. In short, unless you do as we say (i.e., assimilate at once), your expletives belong to us.”"
Also "the black vote" is a bogus media construct that dehumanizes black people by treating them as a monolithic hive mind (much like "the female vote" re: women).
There is a spread of opinions in the black community to be sure, as there should be. Yet "the black vote" is a real thing to the extent that there are at least some concerns that typically matter more with blacks than with other demographics. There are reasons why, for example, black Republican support is almost nil.
Hillary is to the black vote as W. was to the evangelical vote. Both politicians have spent a good deal of time learning the whistles and clicks necessary to mobilize that block. Neither block was well served by the association.
It's not how I talk to you about Hillary; it's the fact that Hillary actually talks to blacks and takes them seriously (probably more seriously than you or I do).
The mothers of various victims of racial injustice (Trayvon Marton, Sandra Bland, etc) have been campaigning for Hillary Clinton. Why would they do that? Are they dupes or shills? It could be that Hillary actually took the time to meet with them, treat them like people, make sure she understood their concerns, and convinced them she wants to help them. That could all be a cynical ploy on Hillary's part of course, but then you're going to have to tell me that these women are all idiots. Say it, meme. You know you want to. Tell me you understand their situation better than they do.
The most important thing is sincerity.
Once you can fake that, you've got it made.
Now that I opened with a quote, let me
continue with another quote.
It is interesting to see this response from
African Americans. What have the Clintons done to earn such devotion? Did they take extreme political risks to defend the rights of African Americans? Did they courageously stand up to right-wing demagoguery about black communities? Did they help usher in a new era of hope and prosperity for neighborhoods devastated by deindustrialization, globalization, and the disappearance of work?
No. Quite the opposite.
Bill Clinton presided over the largest increase in federal and state prison inmates of any president in American history. Clinton did not declare the War on Crime or the War on Drugs—those wars were declared before Reagan was elected and long before crack hit the streets—but he escalated it beyond what many conservatives had imagined possible. He supported the 100-to-1 sentencing disparity for crack versus powder cocaine, which produced staggering racial injustice in sentencing and boosted funding for drug-law enforcement.
Clinton championed the idea of a federal “three strikes” law in his 1994 State of the Union address and, months later, signed a billion crime bill that created dozens of new federal capital crimes, mandated life sentences for some three-time offenders, and authorized more than billion for state prison grants and the expansion of police forces. The legislation was hailed by mainstream-media outlets as a victory for the Democrats, who “were able to wrest the crime issue from the Republicans and make it their own.”
When Clinton left office in 2001, the United States had the highest rate of incarceration in the world. Human Rights Watch reported that in seven states, African Americans constituted 80 to 90 percent of all drug offenders sent to prison, even though they were no more likely than whites to use or sell illegal drugs. Prison admissions for drug offenses reached a level in 2000 for African Americans more than 26 times the level in 1983. All of the presidents since 1980 have contributed to mass incarceration, but as Equal Justice Initiative founder Bryan Stevenson recently observed, “President Clinton’s tenure was the worst.”
Some might argue that it’s unfair to judge Hillary Clinton for the policies her husband championed years ago. But Hillary wasn’t picking out china while she was first lady. She bravely broke the mold and redefined that job in ways no woman ever had before. She not only campaigned for Bill; she also wielded power and significant influence once he was elected, lobbying for legislation and other measures. That record, and her statements from that era, should be scrutinized. In her support for the 1994 crime bill, for example, she used racially coded rhetoric to cast black children as animals. “They are not just gangs of kids anymore,” she said. “They are often the kinds of kids that are called ‘super-predators.’ No conscience, no empathy. We can talk about why they ended up that way, but first we have to bring them to heel.”
An oft-repeated myth about the Clinton administration is that although it was overly tough on crime back in the 1990s, at least its policies were good for the economy and for black unemployment rates. The truth is more troubling. As unemployment rates sank to historically low levels for white Americans in the 1990s, the jobless rate among black men in their 20s who didn’t have a college degree rose to its highest level ever. This increase in joblessness was propelled by the skyrocketing incarceration rate.
Why is this not common knowledge? Because government statistics like poverty and unemployment rates do not include incarcerated people. As Harvard sociologist Bruce Western explains: “Much of the optimism about declines in racial inequality and the power of the US model of economic growth is misplaced once we account for the invisible poor, behind the walls of America’s prisons and jails.” When Clinton left office in 2001, the true jobless rate for young, non-college-educated black men (including those behind bars) was 42 percent. This figure was never reported. Instead, the media claimed that unemployment rates for African Americans had fallen to record lows, neglecting to mention that this miracle was possible only because incarceration rates were now at record highs. Young black men weren’t looking for work at high rates during the Clinton era because they were now behind bars—out of sight, out of mind, and no longer counted in poverty and unemployment statistics.
You might enjoy this characteristically inconsistent and frustrating but still thoroughly entertaining Camille Paglia rant about Clinton:
http://www.salon.com/2016/02/11/sexism_has_nothing_to_do_with_ it_camille_paglia_on_hillary_clinton_gloria_steinem_and_why_new_ha mpshire_women_broke_for_bernie_sanders/
Gonna leave this here since it seems germane to the discussions so far and I'd hate to see it get buried since it's a former Panther offering his very astute perspective as to why African Americans are supporting Hillary.
It'd be a hell of a lot less perplexing if you googled for, I don't know, "why blacks support hillary".
Or you could read this for some insight:
Hillary has done the hard work for years of showing the black community she is listening and what happens to them does matter, even if it hasn't translated into magical solutions.
You could, of course, chalk it all up to a big decades-long cynical act on Hillary's part to give the illusion that she cares. Well if we're going there, what should we make of Bernie's decades-long cynical act of pretending to not give any kind of shit about blacks? Bernie's black constituents report that the guy has been completely useless any time any of them have tried to work with him or even get ahold of him ... his reputation precedes him.
Blacks are more cynical about politics than even white Millennials are, but the difference is, blacks are much smarter about it. Millennials think all politicians are corrupt except the one who tells them exactly what they want to hear; there's no chance he's wildly overpromising and should be denounced as a charlatan. But black voters have lived the experience of politicians actually betraying them to various degrees, so when a new alleged savior comes along, they don't blindly trust him; they subject all politicians to roughly comparable degrees of scrutiny, and support the ones who show that they at least seem to get it somewhat, and are sincere about wanting to help the black community. Which gets us to Bernie not being willing to work with blacks in Vermont.
You're full of shit.
It's the politics of fear. Clinton is basically a hedge against the total destruction of the black community by almost any Republican nominee versus the slow, painful subsistence existence that is the status quo under Clinton.
Clinton simply keeps the wolves at bay and nothing more.
You've as much said that's the reason to settle for her.
Come on now.
And you're honestly going to tell me you're going to believe John Lewis's utter fabrication of meeting Bill and Hillary during the civil rights movement versus the photographic and criminal justice evidence of Sanders's actual participation?
Don't piss on my leg and tell me it's rain.
Don't tell me I'm full of shit. Go to South Carolina and tell 84% of black voters that THEY'RE full of shit. I'm sure they'll appreciate your opinions.
You could, of course, familiarize yourself with some of their opinions too; why some black people know letters and a few are even surprisingly articulate! I realize you already posted an article from a guy telling you what you want to hear, but there is an actual spread of opinions and not all of them conveniently reinforce your opinions.
Bort is the pure gleeful embodiment of Ambrose Bierce's definition of "African."
What broke inside you, memedumpster? Not so long ago you seemed to understand that blacks have concerns that are in some ways foreign to whites, and just because they don't guzzle Bernie's snake oil doesn't mean they're stupid. Now here it's a primary result where blacks voted overwhelmingly for Hillary -- even more than the whites of South Carolina did -- and suddenly you think it's all about a pliant, easily-led block of voters who don't know what's good for them?
... oh god I think I figured it out, meme. You were fine with blacks interrupting Bernie at Netroots Nation and Seattle with the tacit understanding that they'd vote for Bernie in the end. Except they haven't, at least not so far. And you feel that is an outrage.
If we're going to bring Bierce into this, I think the definition you're after is "DOCTRINAIRE"
I'm wondering about that "unelectable" tag. You do know that Hillary just beat Sanders 73.5% to 26% in South Carolina, right? Nearly three to one over Sanders.
I think Sanders would have less trouble running against Republicans than against his own party.
Anyway, it's already down to two neoliberal centerists with different campaign styles and an old man from Vermont who looks great on paper but probably couldn't get much done in office (not that Hillary will do better - you think the Republicans in the senate hate Obama? Just wait.)
Sanders would be very easy for Republicans to crush. They can nail him on single payer alone: it fucking crashed and burned like the Hindenburg in Bernie's home state. Bernie's flagship policy goal and it was a massive fucking failure, and Bernie wants to take it nationwide.
I don't even need to go any farther into other obvious angles of attack that would appeal to Republican voters (taxes, weak foreign policy, etc); there is at least some evidence Republicans have been hoping to run against Bernie. It seems they think they stand a better chance against Bernie than against the woman they've been trying to destroy for 25 years and just can't kill. Sure they've figured out how to make their base (and the far left, same thing) hate Hillary, but probably not a majority of America, especially when the choice is Hillary or Trump.
It's amazing, this ability you have to shape flatulence into words.
No, Bort is right. Heaven forbid the Democrats lose their precious South Carolina vote!
Last night really stings, doesn't it? It's not my fault the country isn't into Bernie.
"Sanders would be very easy for Republicans to crush."
Only if Hillary supporters refuse to vote for him, since registered D's outnumber R's by millions, so what you just said is "I would prefer a Republican president."
This is confirmation of DINO status (that we all knew the entire time you've ever posted about politics) and your mate rate is now 5%. Time to paint yourself black and pretend to be the negro whisperer... oh, too late.
Personally, I would vote for Sanders over Any Republican in a heartbeat.
That doesn't change the fact that he'd be easy pickings for the Republicans. I mentioned single payer as an actual very real weakness on Sanders' part, now just imagine what the Republicans could do to him once they started Swiftboating him.
Believe it or not, a lot of people actually like Hillary. Meanwhile, Sanders has been running on the credulity of the Left all this time; his fan base desperately want to believe that all you have to do is elect the right president and he'll fix everything. Not all of America is going to fall for that.
@cognitive you can always write in somebody, which is what I'll do if the Dems are dim enough to nominate Hillary.
The mere fact that Bernie supporters are willing to throw away their vote just to spite Hilary and possibly help get Trump elected shows just how incredibly fucking stupid and petty they are.
What makes you say that, Mr SolRo?
First off, if you don't like Trump, then you are not going to like Hillary. Informed voters understand that these two old friends are both neoliberal centrists; if you're the average American, who trusts in the system's ability to correct itself and agrees with the core principles of postmodern liberalism, then either candidate would ultimately be acceptable. If, however, you reject liberalism, AND believe the answer to our woes lies in further centralizing power and crafting a stronger state, i.e. you're a socialist, i.e. you're a Bernie supporter, then Hillary "Sachs" Clinton shouldn't be acceptable to you. Neither Trump nor Clinton would fit your ideology - although Trump would be preferable, because when hanging out with your fellow Blue Teamers, the failings of a Trump presidency will be easier for you to attack. The *worst possible outcome* for Bernie supporters would be for Hillary to win the election, and for Democrats currently disgruntled with their party to go back to being liberals! This is a perfect opportunity for socialists to quietly seize control of the Democratic party, but it won't happen unless Hillary is out of the picture.
Second, you say "throw away your vote". What do you mean by this? "Throw away" implies that there is some tangible. practical value to your vote, yet this an incredibly naive perspective, and I'd be shocked if you, of all people - a NATO-hating, RT-watching Amero-skeptic - actually bought into it! Voting for the next president is a purely symbolic, ritual act; a "pressure valve" meant to reinforce group identity and sanctify the elite's right to rule through the careful presentation of three illusions: the illusion of self-agency, the illusion of revolution, and the illusion of consent.
Given that one's vote has no real effect on external reality, then how can it be "stupid" or "petty" to use your vote however you see fit...?
"Informed voters understand that these two old friends are both neoliberal centrists; if you're the average American, who trusts in the system's ability to correct itself and agrees with the core principles of postmodern liberalism, then either candidate would ultimately be acceptable."
You're doing a thing, right? Because no, Clinton and Trump are not more or less the same candidate, no matter how much 18-year-olds who just discovered politics tell you. Hillary has been pretty damn liberal all her career -- she first made her mark 20 years ago trying to bring America affordable health care -- and you can disagree with her here or there, but the differences any informed liberal voter might have with Hillary are nothing like those they would have with Trump.
If anything, I see Trump as more like Sanders in one crucial regard: they've both got a vision of how things ought to be and they're good at stirring up their respective segments of the population, but when it comes to actually achieving their goals -- plans and details -- they've got nothing. They'd make for fine cheerleaders but they'd be ass at actually getting things done. For as much can actually be achieved in the next 4-8 years given even very optimistic visions of Congress, voting for Hillary would not give you "less" than you would get under Sanders; you'd actually be likely to see greater positive change because it would be incremental and based on what circumstances allow rather than the all-or-nothing policies Sanders favors (which, barring a 70% Democatic Congress, will deliver "nothing" rather than "all").
No, no, they really are the same candidate. Trump is a lot closer to Hillary than you are, Mr Bort, in every conceivable way. They have been close, personal friends for years, Trump has frequently supported (and donated to) Hillary's political ambitions in the past, until recently Trump was on-record as a Democrat, Trump has repeatedly come out in favor of "left-wing" Democratic Party positions etc etc. I understand that you're a little angry, and I feel bad that certain Poesters are ganging up on you (their rudeness and personal attacks against you are completely unwarranted), but please, do not take this anger out on me. Only an "18 year old who just discovered politics" would believe the corporate-media's current narrative "Trump is a conservative, Hillary is a liberal, now they will fight". They are both neo-liberals pantomiming for the plebs, the main difference being that Trump is FAR more entertaining than Hil-dawg (which is one of the many reasons why he'll be our next Commander-in-Chief).
AND, I need to point out! I am not trying to Bern your bridges here! When I say that your candidate (Hillary) and the candidate who will win (Trump) are one and the same, I do not say this to "score points" against Hillary, nor do I say this to call you out as a mark. If anything, it is the *conservatives* who are the marks here - they're more willing to vote for a Democrat (Trump) than the Democrats are! Hillary IS a Democrat, yes. I have never disputed this. She stands for anything and everything the Democratic establishment is willing to stand for, and has done so for her entire career; you are quite right about that, and I will stand shoulder-to-shoulder with you on that assessment.
Homer: If you insist on claiming that voting is a complete farce, please explain how it is that the Republican party is being taken over lock, stock and barrel by some neo-liberal real estate developer from NYC? Coz the Party itself is doing everything it can to try to stop that: openly calling for Donald Trump's head on a pike. Yet the juggernaut continues. I suggest this is pretty solid evidence that your vote can certainly count. It's just that Republicans and Democrats alike have forgotten that fact, and until now for Republicans there has been no other credible choice.
That same force ( the will of the voters ) is what pushed the Hillz out of the way the first time. I'm just as cynical about these things as you are Homer, but I'm not so hidebound that I can't see the complexity of the IRL situation.
Also: there is indeed a lot less daylight between Hillary and Donald than anyone seems ready to acknowledge. Strange days indeed.
Let me ask you this, Mr Wildcat. Let us pretend that we had a time machine, and with this time machine, we conducted the following experiment: on the day of the election, Mr Wildcat vote sfor a specific candidate - let's say, Trump. You observe the results of the election. Next, you go back in time, and vote for a different candidate - let's say Hillary. You observe the results of the election. Now you continue going back in time, voting for any possible candidate - Libertarian, Green, Communist, Constitutional, Monarchist - and even NOT voting, instead staying at home and enjoying your day off of work, taking note of the outcome each time.
What do you think will be the result? Will the outcome of the election vary from vote to vote?
Fair enough, there has never been a presidential election that was won by a single vote. So? The point is aggregate action. Our system counts on voting, and voting works best if you treat your ballot like it will be the tie-breaker. It probably won't be, but millions of people laboring under the same delusion collectively decide elections.
No presidential election has been won by a single vote, but they can be lost by millions of people deciding their vote doesn't matter.
No, quite unfair. He didn't answer my question, and his response was to express disappointment that he and he alone is not the decision maker and arbiter of Kings. You have a peculiar notion of what democracy is, EH. It's certainly true that your vote alone will not decide the election, it's designed that way from the ground up. And in Donald's case, it's working splendidly. If it worked the way you describe, Don would have been "voted" out the door long ago.
Shit, I almost forgot my oath.
LOL I was in that exact spot in Cedar Rapids a couple of years ago.
I liked Cedar Rapids.
|Spit Spingola |
The rise of Trump sort of makes me appreciate quaint, awkward stuff like this.
The sort of thing that makes her seem utterly inauthentic and tone-deaf, especially the tone-deaf self-contradictions of her campaign handlers' own overly-calculated Hillary portraits...one day she'll be touted as Grandma Hillary, the next she'll be all #YOLOSWAG pandering Boomer, doing something to show how she's "hip" and totes down with the kids like releasing a focus-grouped list of recent corny pop songs as her totally real Spotify playlist or do the latest dance on some outlet like Ellen.
I don't think there's been a candidate more out of touch with the electorate since Romney. You just get the feeling that her handlers have a big bucket of hand sanitizer at the ready to wipe her down with at her insistence every time she has to interact with the public. It's just terribly inauthentic, like when the Rubio-bot tries to trash talk or tell jokes, or one of JEB's many idiotic affectations he'd show off like tweeting a photo of his "debating boots" i.e. stupid looking cowboy boots with JEB down the sides in gold letters.
Not even I will deny that Hillary is terrible at selling herself; some people are not meant to be salesmen, and she is one of them.
When she exhausts the carefully-crafted talking points (carefully-crafted yet always sound phony as all hell), and she just starts talking about what she has seen and what she believes, she comes across tons better. I wish she'd lead with that. Maybe she needs two shots of vodka before every speaking engagement.
| Register or login To Post a Comment|