Hillary Clinton's performance on the last night of the Democratic primary (Baruch College, June 3, 2008) was abominable.
Rather than acting to unify the Party, by tempering the frenzy she has stirred among some White women and others who voted for her during the campaign, Hillary propped herself up as a power broker before the nation to whom Barack Obama would have to cater to before she releases 18 million voters to his effort to win the presidency.
Last night and this morning, my family, friends and radio commentators have described her performance in stunning terms, as "embarrasing," "deranged narcissism," "egotistical," "vindictive," "delusional," "divisive" and "evil."
The Black community--and all well-meaning Whites and others who value and are committed to maintaining the moral progress culminating in the Civil Rights Acts of the Sixties--must denounce and reject Hillary Clinton for what she represents, which is a return to blatant bigoted attitudes that essentially echo Chief Justice Roger Taney of the Dred Scott case (1857), who said "A black man has no rights a white man is bound to respect."
Hillary Clinton does not respect the fair fight and victory that Barack Obama accomplished, obtaining the number of delegates needed to secure the Democratic Party's nomination.
In fact, the Democratic Party, in allowing Clinton to hang on in the campaign, making mischief and biding her time, showed no respect for Obama or fear of its heretofore most loyal constituency, Black voters.
Does anyone believe that Hillary Clinton--or any other candidate--would not have been drummed out or brokereed out of the campaign weeks ago if the candidate in Obama's commanding lead were a White man?
Does anyone believe that Barack Obama would be permitted to challenge the rules or dismiss her accomplishment and hold voters hostage if Hillary Clinton has secured the pledged delegates needed for the nomination?
What does account for Hillary's death grip on this election campaign? Her tenacity appears strange, strained, as if she cannot psychologically adjust to a scenario that does not position her as the presidential nominee. It feels like she wants it too badly, and that ain't good.
Wednesday, June 4, 2008
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
3 comments:
Hillary Clinton has cried (New Hampshire) and lied (sniper fire) in this campaign. She has demonstrated a singlemindedness that will stop at nothing to get her way. She believes this is a worthy trait in a presidential candidate.
Her vast experience in the White House must have clued her in that compromise is the order of the day for an elected politician in America--particularly in a Republic in which the Executive branch is one third of the federal governing hierarchy.
Sometimes, you have to take the loss. She lost fair and square, and now wants to debate a vice-president slot, until she can influence enough superdelegates to her side and steal the nomination by the August convention in Denver.
She will argue that if Barack Obama thinks she is good enough to be vice president, then it is an admission to his weakness and therefore why is she not good enough to be president?
Afterall, Obama will have acknowledged how he needs her 18 million voters.
Years ago, in the face of Bill Clinton's exposure as a philanderer in the White House, Hillary Clinton drew a lot of sympathy. She wanted the top spot, and many of the American people felt she should have a turn at the office, and not be sabotaged by her marriage to an embarassing spouse.
However, Bill Clinton's low lifestyle does not grant Hillary Clinton a free pass of arrogance and entitlement to the presidency.
The world changed since the Clinton's were in Office. 911, Katrina, the economy and diminished stature of the nation stirred Americans' desire for change.
Americans are thirsty for renewal and rebirth. Barack Obama emerged on the scene with a message of hope that felt like a brook of fresh water to quench our thirsts. We are drinking from that water, and an America revived on renewed strength will change our country for the better.
In 2006, as the pre-primary analysis was heating up, I thought Hillary Clinton would have had a more ssubstantive program for America, but her waters run shallow. In the final analysis, she touted an opportunity to vindicate herself in the healthcare fight she waged with Congress in her husband's first term; in most other issues, she vaguely positioned herself as qualified based on her husband's presidency or her inprecisely defined "35 years of experience."
Worse yet, her lying about carrying out her role as First Lady under sniper fire, and her appeal to the lowest common denominator of racial prejudice, disqualifies her as a viable candidate for national office, Senate or the presidency.
Hillary Clinton is bad for the Democratic Party. Hillary Clinton is bad for America.
al candidate.
Here is the reality: She hold’s the key to Obama’s chances of winning in the fall. Like it or not she is the force to be reckoned with.
She has a considerable constituency that is about half the voters. And they will not desert her. She puts certain states in play that would other wise not be in play. Why is this important? Race! Obama will lose the popular vote in the general election for sure. But he can win the electoral vote if he wins Florida, Arkansas, Pennsylvania, Ohio, Michigan, and even Missouri.
(Michigan is an especially tough challenge because of Romney.) Who else can help him do that but Hillary? He has certain distinct weaknesses and he needs her help. And with all that it still might not happen!
Post a Comment