Mamie Eisenhower Tames the rugged West

Mamie Eisenhower remains wide awake as she tames the rugged West. In spite of intense sniper fire, and fierce opposition from wild domestic inhabitants, Mamie, this bold forerunner of Hillary Clinton, proves once again that she has what it takes to hit the ground running on day one.

Eric L. Wattree
wattree.blogspot.com

AS HILLARY SAID, "WE GET TO PICK OUR FRIENDS."

BENEATH THE SPIN • ERIC L. WATTREE

IF WE ALLOW OUR BEST TO BE DRAGGED THROUGH THE MUD
THE AVERAGE AMERICAN DOESN’T HAVE A CHANCE

Along with the ability to inspire, a president should have the intelligence to see the big picture, the maturity to handle power, and the class to ensure that his or her own personal needs remain secondary to that of the people. This election process has given us an excellent opportunity to assess those qualities in both candidates, and while Hillary Clinton has demonstrated that she is an exceptionally intelligent woman, she’s also demonstrated that she leaves much to be desired in the area of maturity and class. If we’ve learned nothing else about Hillary during these primaries, we’ve learned that nothing is more important to her than becoming President of the United States–not the nation, not the people, and certainly not the Democratic Party. Hillary has shown that she is more than willing to throw the entire Democratic Party under the bus–along with the Senate, Congress, and the Supreme Court--if it means she’ll end up sitting in the Oval Office.

Hillary’s behavior has been so radically single-minded during these primaries that it sounds like I’m indulging in hyperbole, but the facts will bear me out. Essentially, Senator Obama has won the primaries–he’s won more states, he’s won the popular vote, and he has an insurmountable lead in pledged delegates. If Hillary won all of the remaining primaries, she’d still fall short of Obama’s lead. Hillary knows that quite well, and she also knows that the longer she slings mud at Obama, the greater the chances the Democratic Party, along with many of its elected officials, will go down in defeat. So the classy thing for her to do would be to swallow her pride and encourage her supporters to get behind Senator Obama’s candidacy with all of the enthusiasm that they’ve brought to her campaign. But instead, she’s endorsed the Republican candidate as more qualified to be president than Obama, and she continues to sling mud in the vain hope that she can hurt Obama so badly that his candidacy will lose all viability. She’s calculated that if she hurts Obama badly enough, even if the party doesn’t nominate her by default, Obama will lose the general election. That way, since there won’t be a Democratic incumbent in the race, she’ll still be young enough to run in 2012.

That’s not only a cynically self-centered agenda, but it’s exactly the kind of selfish immaturity that we currently have running the country with George Bush–and it’s also the kind of politics that we’re so desperately trying to get away from. In addition to that, her Bosnian chronicle demonstrates that she’s willing to lie to the American people without cause or provocation. Is that the kind of person we want heading the Democratic Party? And after already being embarrassed by first, her husband, then Bush, is that the kind of flawed character that we want representing America before the world?

Hillary claims that Obama lacks the experience to be president, but ask yourself, do you think if the situation was completely reversed that Obama would continue to throw mud on Hillary, or try to tear the party apart in an attempt to destroy her chances of winning the election? Absolutely not. That’s the difference between old-style, selfish immaturity, and a young man who wants to bring change to the body politic–a change that gives priority to the American people, over personal ambition.

But there’s an upside to this situation. The fact is, Hillary can’t destroy the party alone–in order for her to pull it off, she needs the backing of both, her supporters, and the super-delegates. So Democrats have a decision to make–do they genuinely want to see change, or are they going to sit back and allow Hillary to bring the Republican Party back from the dead?

There are a number of people in the Clinton camp who would love to support Obama–they’ve been touched by his passion, his enthusiasm, and his dedication to what we can become as a nation–but they remain loyal to Hillary due to past ties and favors that the Clintons did for them while Bill was in office–favors that we now know came with strings. While the loyalty of these supporters is understandable, there are times when loyalty can be taken too far, and this is one of those times. At this point Hillary is asking her supporters for more than just their support for a viable campaign for the presidency, she’s already lost that campaign. Now she’s asking them to support her attempt to not only hold the Democratic Party hostage, but to possibly destroy it, and their own careers as well, if the Democrats refuse to cater to her unreasonable demand to be its nominee. That is far too much to ask of anyone–after all, how would they face their constituencies thereafter?

Thus, at this point Hillary’s supporters who hold political office should be asking themselves whether or not they’ve exhausted any obligation they may have owed the Clintons. They should also begin to consider the obligations they have to the Democratic Party, the American people, and indeed, themselves. The should consider at what point their loyalty to the Clintons begin to have a negative impact on the people they represent. When Rep. John Lewis and Gov. Bill Richardson asked themselves that question, they came to the conclusion, that time had come.

The Democratic Party has the good fortune of having one of the most gifted, honorable, and dynamic voices in a generation willing to carry its banner. While the Clintons claim he’s inexperienced and can’t win in the general election, he’s managed to handle everything that both a senator and a former president, with a combined experience of over seventy years, can throw at him, and without even breaking a sweat. And for all intent and purposes, he’s now legitimately won the primaries–and he did it while running a campaign of dignity, respect, and with his head held high. So are we now really prepared to sit back and watch this impressive young man be dragged through the mud by a meanspirited, vindictive, relic of the past, based solely on her sense of entitlement? If we do, we don’t deserve the presidency–in fact, it will signal the time for a third party.

Eric L. Wattree
wattree.blogspot.com

JEREMIAH AND AMERICA’S BLIND SPOT

BENEATH THE SPIN • ERIC L. WATTREE JEREMIAH AND AMERICA'S BLIND SPOT The American media has become absolutely fixated on Rev. Jeremiah Wright. How could he say what he did about America? Why didn't Senator Obama storm out of the church in protest? And how can Barack Obama be the man he claims to be and embrace such a man? These are all questions that might have also been asked of another man and his supporters over two thousand years ago, and today just as then, the answer is short and sweet–because the man speaks the truth. The controversy over Rev. Wright's sermon says much more about America's blind spot than it does about either Rev. Wright, or Sen. Obama. Because while the words were indeed ugly, the truth therein was as pure as virgin snow. Thus, the problem is not with Rev. Wright or Sen. Obama, the problem is with America's inability to handle the truth, and as long as that continues to be the case, America is doomed to be led by demagogues whose claim on leadership will be based on lies, and the very worst in an otherwise great nation. The fact is, Obama didn't renounce Rev. Wright or leave his church in protest because he knew that there was nowhere he could go in the Black community to find a credible ministry that wasn't preaching the very same sermon at some point in time. We must remember that the snippet of Rev. Wright's sermon that we heard played and re-played ad nauseam by the media was taken from over thirty years of sermons–and even then, it was taken out of context. Not once did I hear the media play the part of the sermon where Rev. Wright declared that he'd been taught to "love the hell out of my enemy!" And that was the thrust–the intent, if you will–of his sermon. It was not his intent to preach hatred of America, his intent was to preach the truth, and to love the hell right out the those who specialize in bringing the very worse out in the American people. So, the media didn't just take Rev. Wright's words out of context, it took the role of the Black church out of context as well. Black preachers are not just spiritual advisers, they're also therapists. For the most part, Black people don't have the resources to engage private therapists to work out the frustrations attendant to a daily barrage injustice, so Black preachers provide that service. The next time you watch the endless loops of Rev. Wright's sermon, look at the people in the background, and the young man who comes up to bow his approval. Rev. Wright is giving his congregation the opportunity to vent the frustration of injustice. White people who find themselves concerned over Rev. Wright's words should ask themselves, where do you think all of that passion and frustration would go if Rev. Wright, and Black preachers across this land, wasn't providing their people a vehicle for releasing that passion and pent-up frustration? Instead of demanding that this man be renounced, he and his Christian colleagues should be given awards as renowned public servants. And further, it is indeed ironic that this man would be called un-American. Black people have been called a lot of things over the centuries, but unpatriotic has never been among them. We must never forget that it was a Black man, Crispus Attucks, who was the very first person to die for this country. And from that moment to this, regardless to what Black people have endured at the hands of White America, we've been the very first to respond, with a willingness to lay our lives on the line against any threat to the American ideal. But it is the phrase "American ideal" that separates Rev. Wright from Bush, Cheney, and the Limbaughs of this world. When Rev. Wright said "God damn America", he was clearly speaking of American policy, not the American ideal–and since he has paid his dues as an American in full, he had every right to do so. One Rev. Jeremiah Wright is worth more to America than a boatload of armchair patriots like Bush, Cheney, and the Rush Limbaughs of the world. While these armchair patriots take pride in going around wearing American flags in their lapels, and declaring how much they love America to all who will listen, where were they when America needed them to place their lives on the line? I'll tell you where they were–George Bush used his father's influence to maneuver his way into the Texas National Guard in order to assure that other Americans would go Vietnam, and in many cases die in his place, and even then he went AWOL; Dick Cheney managed to get five (5) military deferments, indicating that "I had other priorities"; and Rush Limbaugh managed to avoid fighting for this country by claiming a boil on his ass. Now these so-called "super-patriots" are pointing their finger at Rev. Wright as un-American for speaking the truth–this man who not only answered this nation call in the Navy, but served as a United States Marine as well. There's something very wrong with that picture. Rev. Wright's sermon was designed to wake a sleeping giant, the American ideal. He was pointing out to America that we're suffering from a serious blind spot. He wanted to open America's eyes to the fact that the most unconscionable act of terrorism in the history of mankind was when the United States dropped not one, but two atomic bombs on the women and children of the Japan. In that case, we attempted to justify it by saying it saved countless American lives, but by using that argument we also argue that the lives of American combatants are more valuable than Japanese women and children–thus terrorism is justified when American lives are involved. We're embracing that very argument even now in Iraq. The American people can be blinded to that fact through the thick fog of patriotism, but the rest of the world doesn't suffer from our laundered point of view. They see our actions then, and now, for what it is--terrorism. The good Rev. Wright's sermon was right out of the Bible. John 8:32: "And you shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free." And the truth is, the only difference between Arab terrorism and American terrorism is that we've got a much more efficient delivery system. Open your eyes America. True, Al Qaeda killed three thousand Americans, but in response, we've killed over a million people who's done absolutely nothing to us. Let us think about that as we condemn Jeremiah. Eric L. Wattree wattree.blogspot.com A STATEMENT FROM HILLARY'S PASTOR REGARDING THE REV. JEREMIAH WRIGHT The Reverend Jeremiah Wright is an outstanding church leader whom I have heard speak a number of times. He has served for decades as a profound voice for justice and inclusion in our society. He has been a vocal critic of the racism, sexism and homophobia which still tarnish the American dream. To evaluate his dynamic ministry on the basis of two or three sound bites does a grave injustice to Dr. Wright, the members of his congregation, and the African-American church which has been the spiritual refuge of a people that has suffered from discrimination, disadvantage, and violence. Dr. Wright, a member of an integrated denomination, has been an agent of racial reconciliation while proclaiming perceptions and truths uncomfortable for some white people to hear. Those of us who are white Americans would do well to listen carefully to Dr. Wright rather than to use a few of his quotes to polarize. This is a critical time in America's history as we seek to repent of our racism. No matter which candidates prevail, let us use this time to listen again to one another and not to distort one another's truth. Dean J. Snyder, Senior Minister Foundry United Methodist Church March 19, 2008 Stay on top of what's going on around you. From Hip Hop to world and national news--stay informed about those things that impact both the Black community and the world by some of the nation's top Black writers. Stay in touch with Your Black World www.yourblackworld.com/. It's your piece of the net. Eric

The Problem With Hillary

BENEATH THE SPIN • ERIC L. WATTREE THE PROBLEM WITH HILLARY The problem with Hillary is that she seems to think she's smarter than the rest of us. The next time you hear her speaking at a political rally, listen to her closely, then ask yourself, does she sound like a person who's speaking to political allies, or more like a schoolmarm talking down to children and instructing them in the inherent value of being obedient and listening to the wisdom of their elders. She seems to have absolutely no respect for the intelligence of the American people. She comes off as though she views the American voter as an unfortunate nuisance to be manipulated to reach her goal. For example, when she was quoted as saying, "He's [John McCain's] never been the president, but he will put forth his lifetime of experience. I will put forth my lifetime of experience. Senator Obama will put forth a speech he made in 2002." That statement was clearly calculated to leave the impression in the voters' feeble little minds that while John McCain has never been president, she has. And to hear the dismissive tone that she takes towards Barack Obama, one would never know that while Obama was both the president of the Harvard Law Review and a professor of Constitutional law, she failed the bar exam. The one good thing about this extended primary season, however, is that it gives us the opportunity to see past the candidates' political veneer--we're afforded the opportunity to see how the candidates actually handle crisis and frustration. It also allows us to see their decision making capabilities, and it gives us a snapshot of the kind of personal character that they'll bring to the White House--and recent history demonstrates just how important it is that we avail ourselves of that opportunity. If we'd done so with Bush we could have saved close to a million lives, billions of dollars, and an immeasurable amount of heartache. Thus, anyone who is truly curious about what a Hillary Clinton presidency would bring--and that should include all of us--should tune out all of the promises, all of the "day one" nonsense, and simply open their eyes, because Hillary is on display as we speak. We've already seen one example of Hillary's character--or, lack thereof--in her willingness to endorse the Republican candidate over her fellow Democrat. Now we're getting another look with her recent statement that by not allowing a second vote, or finding a way to seat the Michigan and Florida delegates we're being "un-American." I have one question in that regard--if not seating the delegates is indeed un-American, wasn't it just as un-American when she agreed to it before she needed them to try to catch Obama? It seems that her desperate need to promote her agenda is rendering her oblivious to her raging hypocrisy. If the foregoing isn't sufficient to raise a red flag about Hillary, we're being given yet another opportunity to observe her character as it applies to her feminist credentials. Hillary has represented herself as a strong and independent woman throughout her entire career. Much of her support comes from feminists who think they're supporting one of their own. Yet, now, just as she turned on the Democrats to accommodate her ambition, she seems also willing to turn her back on her feminine independence--the very foundation of the feminist creed--to embrace her husband's resume as her own. She's actually trying to convince America that she served as co-president with her husband during what she would have us believe was a Billary administration. If her claim was true, there'd be no problem, but she wants us to simply take her at her word, without any evidence to substantiate her contention. She claims to be an expert in foreign affairs, for example. Ok, then she should be prepared to tell us what foreign initiatives she's fostered? What foreign leaders has she been in negotiations with, and what was the outcome? If I know Hillary--and I'm beginning to know her better every day--if she had any evidence whatsoever of foreign affairs experience, or anything else to show she was more qualified than Obama, it would have long since been brought to the forward. So we must assume that her honesty is suspect. In addition, since she's being so slow to reveal her tax return, she's probably being less than candid about the Clinton family's financial dealings as well. . Now let us turn to competence. I would love to grant that Hillary is at least as competent as George Bush, but the only evidence that we have to measure that is the way she's run her campaign--and in that regard, she seems to be making some the very same mistakes that Bush made in Iraq. Just like Bush in his Iraqi campaign, Hillary assumed that this primary season was going to be a walk in the park. She thought she'd have the nomination rapped up by Super Tuesday, so again, just like Bush, she had no plan B. As a result, in spite of the fact that she raised more money than any other presidential candidate in history, other than Barack Obama, she ended up with budgetary problems that led to her having to loan her campaign money out of her own pocket. And beyond that, she's also shown us that she tends to get flustered under fire. When Obama began to take over the lead, she didn't know whether to cry, get angry, embrace her opponent ("I'm so honored to be here with Barack Obama"), or go on the attack ("Shame on you, Barack Obama "), so she ended up doing all three, making herself look ridiculously indecisive. She's also demonstrated that her pledged commitments tend to be rather shallow. While she claimed a commitment to moving away from old-style politics, when she came under pressure her first instinct was to reverted right back to the old slash and burn tactics that she learned from Carl Rove and the Republicans. So while Hillary is telling us that she has what it takes to be president on day one, what we see is a Democratic candidate who claims to want to protect the American people from having to live through another Republican administration, yet now that she's hopelessly behind in the delegate count, she lacks the integrity to stand by an agreement made by all of the candidates prior to the primaries. We also see a candidate that is so desperate to protect the American people from the Republican Party that she's slinging mud all over the Democratic effort, and also endorsed the Republican nominee over her Democratic opponent. In addition, we see a candidate who has built her entire career on the proposition that she's a strong, independent woman, yet now, seems all too willing to throw the principles that's guided her throughout her life out the window to use her husband's resume to reach her goals. And finally, we see a candidate who claims she's uniquely prepared to be president, yet used such poor judgement, and mis-managed her finances so badly, that it caused a budgetary crisis within her campaign. The American people need to ask themselves three questions: First, in light of what we've already gone through with George Bush, is this the kind of character that we can depend on to repair our country? Secondly, since their only criticism of Obama is the claim that he's young and inexperienced, how is it that he's handling both Bill and Hillary with such ease? And finally, why is it that it's the two "seasoned politicians" who's finding it necessary to play dirty politics? America needs to give these questions some thought. Eric L. Wattree wattree.blogspot.com         Eric Stay on top of what's going on around you. From Hip Hop to world and national news--stay informed about those things that impact both the Black community and the world, by some of the nation's top Black writers. Stay in touch with Your Black World www.yourblackworld.com/. It's your piece of the net.

Hillary Colludes With Conservatives Against Obama

BENEATH THE SPIN • ERIC L. WATTREE

HILLARY HOLDS DEMOCRATS HOSTAGE

 

Blank statement: Hillary Clinton does not deserve the Democratic Nomination for president–in fact, based on what these primaries have revealed of her character, she doesn’t even deserve her seat in the senate.

While Hillary has long since switched to the Democrat Party, recent weeks have clearly demonstrated that her Republican inclination towards cutthroat politics, shallow character and deceit remains firmly in tact. Compelling evidence of that is the CBS News report indicating that Hillary said, both she and Senator John McCain offer the experience to respond to a crisis, while Barack Obama only offers rhetoric. Specifically, the report quoted her as saying, “He’s [John McCain’s] never been the president, but he will put forth his lifetime of experience. I will put forth my lifetime of experience. Senator Obama will put forth a speech he made in 2002.”

That is the most mean-spirited and irresponsible remark that one Democrat can make about another prior to a national election. With that statement Hillary Clinton has essentially–no, in fact-- endorsed Republican, John McCain over Barack Obama if she fails to get the Democratic nomination.

That statement, along with her subsequent behavior clearly demonstrates that Hillary Clinton has embarked upon a scorched Earth campaign against both Barack Obama and the Democratic Party as a whole, and it is also now clear that her every move is designed to hold the very viability of the Democratic Party hostage against nominating anyone but herself.

Further evidence of that is in spite of her claim during the last debate that she is “so honored to be here with Senator Obama” and that she represents change, throughout the run up to the Texas/Ohio primaries she has engaged in the Karl Rovian politics of mudslinging (“to see what will stick”), the politics of fear, and an attempt to ridicule Senator Obama’s strengths, even though she certainly realizes that if Obama is the nominee her attacks will make it more difficult for him to be elected in November. In fact, that is her plan–to sling so much mud on Obama that he won’t be able to mount a viable campaign against the Republican nominee.

In my article, Will the Real Hillary Please Stand Up?, I pointed out that “Even Bill Clinton has acknowledged that if Hillary doesn’t get a win in Texas, she won’t get the presidential nomination. So in the next two weeks her character, and the kind of experience she brings to the table will be on display. If she’s truly committed to change, and what’s in the best interest of the United States, we’ll see a lady engaged in a valiant, yet, clean fight for the nomination. But if the “experience” she so often speaks of is of the old-style, me-first, America-be-damned kind of politics of the past, we’re going to see a lot of lying, desperate mudslinging, and win-at-any-cost kind of tactics.”

I also pointed out in that same article that “Hillary is right in one respect, however–experience can be impressive, as we saw in the Texas debate–and she certainly has it. But Hillary has the wrong kind of experience–she’s experienced in the old ways of voter manipulation. During the debate we saw a chameleon at work–first we saw the cordial Hillary, but she felt she needed to set herself apart; then she became presidential Hillary, but Obama easily matched her sober, no nonsense veneer; then she went into attack dog Hillary, only to quickly change tactics after being booed; towards the end, she finally settled on Saint Hillary, to confer love upon her opponent. It took her the entire debate, but being the “experienced” politician that she is, she finally stumbled on just the right tone of manipulation. I have a feeling we’re going to see a lot more of that in the future, so I just wanted to give you a playbook so you can keep up with which Hillary is on display.”

No, I’m not clairvoyant, it’s just that Hillary is so self-serving that she’s predictable. You see, Hillary is so far behind Obama in the number of delegates necessary to secure the nomination that she’d have to win all of the remaining primaries by over 20 points just to catch up. In short, she can no longer win the nomination–the only way she can get it is to steal it. Thus, she’s calculated that the only way she can become the nominee is through hook, crook, and deceit. So she’s calculated that she must threaten to destroy the Democratic Party’s chances of winning the November election in order to secure her community property rights–the office of the presidency. That’s right, she sees it as her entitlement.

So, even though all of the democratic candidates agreed beforehand not to campaign, or seat, the delegates in Florida and Michigan due to the states’ violation of a prohibition against holding their primaries before February 5, now Hillary is demanding that the 366 delegates be seated, and with good reason. In spite of the fact that all of the democratic candidates, including Hillary, agreed that those delegates wouldn’t be counted, when all of the other candidates took their names off the ballot, Hillary allow her name to remain on, and since she was the only Democratic name on the ballot, technically, she won the primary. Now that she’s hopelessly behind Obama in delegates, she wants to change the rules of the game and count those delegates.

A fight over this issue would tear the Democratic Party apart and allow a republican victory in November. Hillary knows that, and she also knows that Obama is the people’s choice for the Democratic nomination, but instead of taking the high road and simply bowing out gracefully, she’s holding the Democratic Party hostage as she slings mud at Obama, so that later she can convince the superdelegates (the party bigwigs) that Obama is so muddied that he wouldn’t be a viable candidate–never mind the fact she’s the one who’s throwing the mud.

So the real Hillary has finally stood up, and what do we find–vindictiveness, deceit, and self-service. Some would call that hardball politics. I call it a flaw in her character, that should preclude her from the Democratic nomination.

Eric L. Wattree
wattree.blogspot.com

HILLARY CLINTON DOESN'T DESERVE THE DEMOCRATIC NOMINATION

BENEATH THE SPIN * ERIC L. WATTREE HILLARY CLINTON DOESN'T DESERVE THE DEMOCRATIC NOMINATION Blank statement: Hillary Clinton does not deserve the Democratic Nomination for president–in fact, based on what these primaries have revealed of her character, she doesn't even deserve her seat in the senate. * While Hillary has long since switched to the Democrat Party, recent weeks have clearly demonstrated that her Republican inclination towards cutthroat politics, shallow character and deceit remains firmly in tact. Compelling evidence of that is the CBS News report indicating that Hillary said, both she and Senator John McCain offer the experience to respond to a crisis, while Barack Obama only offers rhetoric. Specifically, he report quoted her as saying, "He's [John McCain's] never been the president, but he will put forth his lifetime of experience. I will put forth my lifetime of experience. Senator Obama will put forth a speech he made in 2002." That is the most mean-spirited and irresponsible remark that one Democrat can make about another prior to a national election. With that statement she has essentially–no, in fact-- endorsed Republican, John McCain over Barack Obama if she fails to get the Democratic nomination. That statement, along with her subsequent behavior clearly demonstrates that Hillary Clinton has embarked upon a scorched Earth campaign against both Barack Obama and the Democratic Party as a whole, and it is also now clear that her every move is designed to hold the very viability of the Democratic Party hostage against nominating anyone but herself. Further evidence of that is in spite of her claim during the last debate that she is "so honored to be here with Senator Obama" and that she represents change, throughout the run up to the Texas/Ohio primaries she has engaged in the Karl Rovian politics of mudslinging ("to see what will stick"), the politics of fear, and an attempt to ridicule Senator Obama's strengths, even though she certainly realizes that if Obama is the nominee her attacks will make it more difficult for him to be elected in November. In fact, that is her plan–to sling so much mud on Obama that he won't be able to mount a viable campaign against the Republican nominee. In my article, Will the Reall Hillary Please Stand Up?, I pointed out that "Even Bill Clinton has acknowledged that if Hillary doesn't get a win in Texas, she won't get the presidential nomination. So in the next two weeks her character, and the kind of experience she brings to the table will be on display. If she's truly committed to change, and what's in the best interest of the United States, we'll see a lady engaged in a valiant, yet, clean fight for the nomination. But if the "experience" she so often speaks of is of the old-style, me-first, America-be-damned kind of politics of the past, we're going to see a lot of lying, desperate mudslinging, and win-at-any-cost kind of tactics." I also pointed out in that same article that "Hillary is right in one respect, however–experience can be impressive, as we saw in the Texas debate–and she certainly has it. But Hillary has the wrong kind of experience–she's experienced in the old ways of voter manipulation. During the debate we saw a chameleon at work–first we saw the cordial Hillary, but she felt she needed to set herself apart; then she became presidential Hillary, but Obama easily matched her sober, no nonsense veneer; then she went into attack dog Hillary, only to quickly change tactics after being booed; towards the end, she finally settled on Saint Hillary, to confer love upon her opponent. It took her the entire debate, but being the "experienced" politician that she is, she finally stumbled on just the right tone of manipulation. I have a feeling we're going to see a lot more of that in the future, so I just wanted to give you a playbook so you can keep up with which Hillary is on display." No, I'm not clairvoyant, it's just that Hillary is so self-serving that she's predictable. You see, Hillary is so far behind Obama in the number of delegates necessary to secure the nomination that she'd have to win all of the remaining primaries by over 20 points just to catch up. In short, she can no longer win the nomination--the only way she can get it is to steal it. Thus, she's calculated that the only way she can become the nominee is through hook, crook, and deceit. So she's calculated that she must threaten to destroy the Democratic Party's chances of winning the November election in order to secure her community property rights--the office of the presidency. That's right, she sees it as her entitlement. So, even though all of the democratic candidates agreed beforehand not to campaign, or seat, the delegates in Florida and Michigan due to the states' violation of a prohibition against holding their primaries before February 5, now Hillary is demanding that the 366 delegates be seated, and with good reason. In spite of the fact that all of the democratic candidates, including Hillary, agreed that those delegates wouldn't be counted, when all of the other candidates took their names off the ballot, Hillary allow her name to remain on, and since she was the only Democratic name on the ballot, technically, she won the primary. Now that she's hopelessly behind Obama in delegates, she wants to change the rules of the game and count those delegates. A fight over this issue would tear the Democratic Party apart and allow a republican victory in November. Hillary knows that, and she also knows that Obama is the people's choice for the Democratic nomination, but instead of taking the high road and simply bowing out gracefully, she's holding the Democratic Party hostage as she slings mud at Obama, so that later she can convince the superdelegates (the party bigwigs) that Obama is so muddied that he wouldn't be a viable candidate--never mind the fact she's the one who's throwing the mud. So the real Hillary has finally stood up, and what do we find–vindictiveness, deceit, and self-service. Some would call that hardball politics. I call it a flaw in her character, that should preclude her from the Democratic nomination. Eric L. Wattree wattree.blogspot.com

THE 2008 STATE OF THE BLACK UNION

BENEATH THE SPIN • ERIC L. WATTREE THE 2008 STATE OF THE BLACK UNION I had the pleasure of watching Tavis Smiley's entire production of the "2008 State of the Black Union" on CSPAN last week–and as usual, it was quite entertaining. But while I thoroughly enjoyed the show, I failed to see the urgency of having Senator Barack Obama in attendance. I could see it if the scholars, politicians, and community leaders in attendance were actually involved in a sober discussion of the Black condition and ways to move the community forward, but that wasn't what it was at all. What it generally turns out to be–and it was true to form this year–is a cross between the Def Philosophy Jam, an infomercial for Tavis Smiley Enterprises, and a Southern revival meeting ("Say amen, Black folk"). That's not the appropriate venue for a man who's trying to convince America that he's a serious contender for President of ALL of the United States. So I don't blame Obama a bit for not attending. Admittedly, every year there are serious people with serious things to say in attendance, but every year there are also a host of people in attendance who are flamboyant, grandiloquent, and simply love to hear themselves talk. There were moments in this year's proceedings, for example, that sounded more like a Mack-man's convention than anything else. While I enjoyed it, I also enjoy Thelonious Monk, but there are literally millions of voters across this land who share neither my taste in music, nor my understanding of the polyrhythmic pronouncements of Michael Eric Dyson, no matter how profound the underlying message. Thus, Senator Obama had to ask himself a very serious question–Do I want to be elected president, or simply hold up a raised fist for Black America? How would you answer that? Yes, Senator Clinton did attend–but at this point, Hillary would attend a dog fight if she thought it would get her an extra vote. When Hillary put out a video claiming the endorsement of Ann Richards--the former governor of Texas who's been dead for a year and a half--that made it clear that she's willing to do anything to become president. And besides, Hillary didn't have anything to lose by attending. The voters knew she was just humoring Black people–or in this case, Tavis–thinking that might help her to get Black votes, which in itself should give us pause. Does she really think that Black people are so shallow that catering to the whims of a talk show host would be enough to get our vote? If she did, judging from her lukewarm reception, now she knows better. Obama, on the other hand, had everything to lose. Being a Black candidate, if some loose cannon on that stage (and their were many of them) happened to say something outrageous, Obama would have had to spend the next three weeks disavowing the remark. So as far as I'm concerned, his decision to decline Tavis' invitation showed excellent judgement–presidential Judgement. Now, don't get me wrong, I'm not anti-Tavis in anyway. Tavis mentioned during the proceedings that some of us wanted to throw him under the bus–and indeed, some of us are like that. We see a successful young brother with a big future and everything going for himself, and the first thing we want to do is tear him down. That's an unfortunate part of our cultural makeup. That is not my intent, however. I see Tavis Smiley as a shining star in the Black community, and an excellent role model for young Black people. As a matter of fact, I was trying to give Robert Johnson the benefit of the doubt until he fired Tavis from BET. After that, I wondered out loud, how he could flood the airways with all of that garbage, then fire the only bright spot on the network. But we do have a responsibility to keep one another in check, as long as we do it in a positive manner, and with positive intent, so at this point I want to take Tavis to task. At one point Tavis remarked during the proceedings, "I knew Barack Obama, before he was Barack Obama." I don't know what Tavis' intent was, but it implied that Obama's newly acquired national stature has changed him in some way. I thought that was uncalled for and wholly unsubstantiated. Then, during Tavis' infomericals, while he was shamelessly promoting his books, "The Covenant With Black America", and "Accountability", I felt the strong implication in Tavis' remarks that Obama was being less than accountable to the Black community by failing to attend. First, I'd like to point out that while Tavis is a very impressive brother, and is undoubtedly a positive reflection on the Black community, we must always keep in mind that neither Tavis, nor his production, represents the Black community. Thus, Senator Obama is under absolutely no obligation to accept his invitation as an extension of the Black community--and for Tavis to imply otherwise is both arrogant, and a gross abuse of his stature within the community. And secondly, accountability goes for talk show hosts too–especially when they profess to represent the Black community. So how accountable is it to produce a show called "The State of the Black Union" then sponsor it with companies that are largely responsible for the very conditions that you're complaining about? One of the sponsors was Allstate Insurance–a company that is alleged to have denied the claims of thousands of Hurricane Katrina victims. One victim, Michael Homan, alleges that Allstate denied his claim based on the position that "Katrina wasn't windy enough." Another sponsor was Exxon/Mobile–a company that's raking in record profits while many Black people have to flip a coin to decide whether they're going to eat or put enough gas in their car to get to work. Wal-Mart was another sponsor–a company that's committed to blocking collective bargaining, providing their employees fair wages and health care, taking away jobs by running other businesses out of the community and purchasing their merchandise from outside the United States, and humiliating their customers by searching them before they leave the store. Is that accountability? Appropriately enough, the most profound statement that came out of the entire proceedings came from the mouth of comedian, Dick Gregory. He said, "First, we told Bill Clinton he was Black, then we told Barack Obama that he wasn't Black enough. We must be fools." I'd say that just about sums up the state of the Black union. Eric L. Wattree wattree.blogspot.com