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

Sphere: Related Content

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

Sphere: Related Content

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

Sphere: Related Content

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.

Sphere: Related Content

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

Sphere: Related Content

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

Sphere: Related Content

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

Sphere: Related Content

HILLARY--DIGGING UP DELIGATES IN DESPERATION

JUST BEFORE I STUMBBLED UPON THIS VIDEO I HAD JUST WRITTEN A RESPONSE TO A FRIEND'S EMAIL. I SAID THE FOLLOWING:
*
First, I don't accept the position that either Hillary or Obama are bigots. And I doubt very seriously that the writer can produce any evidence that the "race card" is being played by the Obama camp. Yes, Hillary has been an activist all of her life, but I notice there's a glaringly conspicuous omission in the the writer's recitation of Hillary's resume--when she was working for Barry Goldwater during the time that MLK was marching on Washington.
*
No, I don't think Hillary's a racist, but neither is she the angel of mercy. Hillary is a hard-nosed politician, and an extremely ambitious and driven women. And like most hard-nosed politicians, she's also a chameleon, as she's clearly demonstrated in the past week. She'll do absolutely anything to further her political goals--including taking credit for her husband's presidency when it's to her advantage, and distancing herself from it when it's a political liability. In fact, she'd probably still be a Republican if she hadn't calculated that it would be next to impossible for a woman to become president in the Republican Party. I think she put her finger to the wind, saw which way it was blowing, and did a coldhearted calculation of which party would benefit her the most.
*
As for her "experience", and kind of president she would be, I think we're getting a preview of that during this election--she's mismanaged her budget, her campaign is highly unorganized and in a state of disarray, she's shown very bad judgement, an inability to see beyond what she wants to see, and she gets flustered and angry under pressure.
*
Sounds like presidential material to me.
*
WELL, I GUESS I CAN REST MY CASE--NOW SHE'S DIGGING UP DELIGATES FROM THE GRAVE.

Eric L. Wattree
wattree.blogspot.com

Sphere: Related Content

HILLARY CLINTON MOCKS FAITH

A Democrat on the DNC board wrote the following:

"Decency trumps politics. When she mocked Obama with her celestial remark she [Hillary] insulted every god fearing, church going person and faithful person. That's unforgiveable."

Hillary’s statement was a slap in the face of all people of faith. Although it was directed at Obama supporters, it clearly betrayed her disdain for all those people who are “naive enough” to believe in faith, and the intervention of God in the matters of mankind.

Hillary went on to say, "Maybe I've just lived a little long . . . but you're not just going to wave a magic wand and have the special interests disappear."

Maybe that's the problem with her campaign--she doesn't understand the power of people coming together in faith and good will.

She says, the magic wand held by the people of faith won't make special interests disappear, but maybe she'd better take another look . . .

BECAUSE OBAMA'S "MAGIC WAND" OF THE PEOPLE OF FAITH IS DOING A PRETTY GOOD JOB OF MAKING HER DISAPPEAR.

Sphere: Related Content

WILL THE REAL HILLARY CLINTON PLEASE STAND UP?

WILL THE REAL HILLARY CLINTON PLEASE STAND UP?
*
After seven years of agony during the Bush administration, America has learn that the most important characteristics to look for in a president is good character and common sense. We’ve learned, in a most painful way, that if a president lacks either of these qualities, everything else is meaningless. These past seven years have taught us that putting our hatred, ignorance, and self-service ahead of the best interest of the country can bring us all down. Thus, when the voters turned out the Republicans in the 2006 election, it was over character; and the current rallying cry across this land for change, is actually about electing a president with good character and common sense. Barack Obama’s meteoric rise to national prominence is America’s way of saying we are tired of the old self-serving, cutthroat, win-at-any-price type politics of the past. Therefore, it is incumbent upon us all to watch what takes place in the next two weeks very closely.
*
Barack Obama has Hillary Clinton on the ropes. He’s blown the heretofore presumptive presidential nominee out of the water by large margins in the last ten states of the primary election. He’s also won among Americans voting outside the country. 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. Personally, I’m betting on the latter–in fact, it’s no longer a bet, she’s already started.
*
While Hillary speaks in wistful tones of how important it is for a Democrat to be elected president in the November election, it seems that it’s only important to her if she happens to be that Democrat. Instead of lifting herself up by telling the people of Texas why she’ll be the better president, she’s engaging in the old Republican-style politics of trying to tear Obama down. She says, for example, that all Obama brings to the table is a lot of inspirational rhetoric, while she has solutions. This begs the question, if she truly believes that it is essential for a Democrat to be elected president in the next election, doesn’t it matter to her that if Obama is the nominee the Republicans will seize upon her words to try to defeat him? If she truly has the solutions to America’s problems, why doesn’t she simply lay them out, instead of attacking a fellow Democrat?
*
The fact is, she has no solutions. What she’s calling solutions are nothing more than a laundry list of what she thinks Americans want to hear. She says, for example, that she’s going to bring our troops home with honor--but she’s not saying how she intends to accomplish that, she simply says she’s going to do it. She also says she’s going to “work towards” providing universal healthcare. Ok, but how? That’s not a solution, that’s a goal–a goal that she’s already failed miserably at during the eight years that Bill was in office--and that was at a time when she didn’t have to focus on anything but that. If she couldn’t do it then, what makes her think she can do it now, with all the other responsibilities of being president? On the other hand, Obama has demonstrated during his eight years in the Illinois State Senate that he has the ability--or experience, if you will–to work with Republicans to get things done, including a healthcare bill.
*
Hillary also says that as president she can hit the ground running “on day one”, andAmerica doesn’t need a president who requires on-the-job-training. That statement is both arrogant, presumptuous, and disingenuous. Every president requires on-the-job-training. Even if Bill could return to office, the world has changed tremendously since he was president, so even he would have to take the time to learn to adapt to a new and different world. Even if that wasn’t the case, however, Hillary seems to be implying that she doesn’t require training because she’s been president before. So it seems that she’s either naive, unrealistic, or trying to take credit for her husband’s experience, none of which inspires confidence in her character. In addition, it sets feminism back fifty years.
*
There’s another thing about Hillary’s “day one” statement–she’s failing to acknowledge the certain gridlock that would result from Republican antipathy towards her. For Republicans, cooperating with a Clinton is one of the worse offenses that can be committed in political life. She’s got to know that–thus, she must also know that she’s lying to the American people about her ability to get things done. On the other hand, while Hillary is straining credulity to the limit, Barack Obama, with his so-called “flowery speeches”, is mending fences, building bridges, and laying the groundwork for an effective presidency. He recognizes that character and experience are great qualities for a president to have, but in order to get his policies through congress, having the ability to inspire the American people is indispensable.
*
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 morphed into presidential Hillary, but Obama easily matched her sober, no nonsense veneer; so she went into attack dog Hillary, only to quickly change tactics after being booed; towards the end, she finally settled on Immaculate Hillary, to bestow love upon her opponent–a love offering that it turns out now was both scripted and plagiarized.
*
Being the “experienced” politician that she is, it took her the entire debate, but she finally stumbled upon just the right tone of manipulation. But now, it turns out, not only was she plagiarizing John Edwards, after making such a big deal of the issue of plagiarism, but her most glowingly poignant moment in the debate was staged, insincere, and just another example of the old politics of voter manipulation. View the evidence above for yourself.
*
I have a feeling we’re going to see a lot more of this in the future, so I just wanted to give you a playbook, so you can keep up with which Hillary is on display.
*
Eric L. Wattree
wattree.blogspot.com

Sphere: Related Content

BLACKS AND BOOKS JUST DON'T MIX

Sphere: Related Content

LET'S MAKE HIM LOOK LIKE A FOOL

Sphere: Related Content

JUST WORDS

Sphere: Related Content

AN APPOINTMENT WITH DESTINY

A FEARLESS LOVE

A FATHERLESS CHILD

AN APPOINTMENT WITH DESTINY

AN APPOINTMENT WITH DESTINY
*

You’re slipping, Hutch. Your lack of customary objectivity has finally betrayed your loyalties. I came to your site to comment on your Huffington Post article, "What Will Obama Do When There's No Hillary Firewall?", only to find another article that was even more partisan. In the first article you dug up everything you could think of that you indicate Republicans will be able to use against Obama in the November election--and you were right. In fact, you were so effective, that you all but built the Republicans a tailor-made swift boat. You’ve rendered the Republican Party a tremendous service in that article. As a result of your article alone, they can fire all of their researchers--you’ve done all of their research for them. And now I find in your most recent article, "What to Make of Obama’s Strange Bedfellows, Namely Blacks and White Males." In that article you imply that Black people, along White males, have come together in a sexist coalition against Hillary to support Obama. In your final paragraph you say the following:

*

"Even if unconscious gender bias affects only a relatively small percent of men in a close contest between a male and female candidate in which the two are rated fairly evenly in competence, qualifications and experience, the refusal of many men to vote for her could harm her candidacy. Female candidates offset the male bias by getting solid support from women voters." But I think you made a few typos in your last sentence. Didn’t you mean to say, "Female[s][should] offset the male bias by [giving] solid support from women voters"?

*
I really can’t understand this Obama hatred that seems to be centered, primarily, among many Black intellectuals and leaders. First, we have a Black television host jumping up and down because the senator won’t drop everything in the middle of a hard fought presidential primary to come kiss his ring, then we have a that group of Black cynics demanding that he walk the water to earn their vote, and finally, a handful of Black pundits, intellectuals, and political leaders trying to sabotage Obama’s march into time. And, oh yes, I almost forgot those who are prudent enough to want to hedge their bet. They’re maintaining a silence so profound that it’s deafening. In fact, I didn’t think Sharpton was capable of keeping such a low profile–it makes one almost wish this year would never end.

*
I find this situation very sad, yet, extremely interesting–but what’s going to be even more interesting is watching these very same Black intellectuals and so-called leaders squirm when they find themselves stranded on the wrong side of history. It’s really ironic. This nation is about to bring into reality everything these people have been screaming for every since they’ve had permission to open their mouths, and now they’re doing everything they can to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory. It’s almost as though they’re afraid they’re going to lose a trusted friend–the right to fail with personal impunity. I’ll be kind and not even mention those who may have to find a new line of work, because they’re gonna have it rough--I don’t think the employment office has a line for social agitator.

*
But just in case I’m wrong, and they really simply don’t understand what everybody is so excited about, let me lay it out. We discussed it the very same week that Obama announced his candidacy. I told you then what was coming–in fact, now that I look back on our discussion, I’m sure you’ll agree, things are happening just like I predicted. Remember when I used the analogy of a runaway train, even before that train left the station? And remember when I compared Obama to JFK and you laughed, and that reporter from KFWB kinda looked at me sideways? I’m certain you both reflected on that when Caroline and Ted Kennedy made the very same remark in their endorsements. But I shouldn’t brag, because it really wasn’t hard to see it coming. The fact is, you’re such an astute political observer, I’m shocked that this one got past you–and even more shocked that you still don’t seem to get it.

*
The key was in understanding the American people. Americans love drama--and I mean that in a good way. They love the idea of hard work and sacrifice–especially when it comes to the underdog fighting to overcome adversity, because that’s the story of America itself. And what we have in Obama is a fearless love, a fatherless child, and now, an appointment with destiny.

*

It's a story that's uniquely American--and the kind of story that will be told and retold as long as man has a yearning for hope. Thus, every American across this land is blessed to be living at this moment in our history. We're living in a time that history will someday record as the defining moment of our legacy as a people. It’s a moment in history when America is on the very brink of disaster, and the founding fathers have literally reached back from the grave to both save this nation, and fulfill their promise to humanity. Historians will someday define this as the moment in our history when America truly became one nation under God--a time when, hundreds of years from now, young people, and particularly young Black people, will look back upon our contribution to their quality of life and say, due to the courage and tenacity of that great generation of Americans, America was finally able to meet its appointment with destiny.

*
So you see, this is not just Obama’s story–it’s an American story. It's a story being written by all of us, and about all of us. So Bill and Hillary can throw all the mud they like, and the Republicans can come with a fleet of swift boats, but it will all be to no avail. Because America is not about to let this opportunity pass them up. Senator Barack Obama is about to walk right into the annals time, and he’s taking us all along with him.

*
Note that I’m dating this communication, because thanks to the internet even the most common scribe can leave a note for posterity, and I want them to know that I could clearly see the significance of this moment. Let’s just call it, my graffiti on the walls of time.
*

Eric L. Wattree
wattree.blogspot.com
February 16, 2008

*

LEGACY

*

I Now stand firm. My dedication to the power of knowledge is the platform upon which my podium rests. I stand firm, strong, and now free--free of anger, free of self-delusion, free of the folly of empty vanity, and free of the pernicious bane of meaningless pride without substance.

*

I now stand free to look upon the eyes of other men, reflecting dignity over sorrow, and accomplishment over pain; I stand with a burning passion, fueled by the very flame that forged ancestral shackles, with a deep sense of pride, and a pride that flows deep.

*

I now stand erect! The steel that once degraded my father, that chained him in bondage to this bitter Earth, now reinforce my character, making me more, rather than less. And the blood and sweat that once drenched his brow, and oozed from the yoke around his neck, now rage with resolve, a sense of purpose, and trembles with passion, within my burning breast.

*

I now stand as a new being–-neither simply African, nor simply American, but a hybrid forced to transcend the sum of my parts-- no longer simply African, since being torn away from the African motherland to suffer and toil in the fields of America, and more than simply American, after being forced to be more than simply American, just to survive within the bowels of this prosperous land.

*

Thus, I stand now armed—-armed with the wisdom of deprivation, the courage of my conviction, and a deep conviction of my courage; and fortified–with the confidence of a survivor, the empowerment of knowledge, and a ravishing hunger for greatness.

*
I now stand the product of love, struggle, and sacrifice; a witness to man's inhumanity to man, and a monument to the hopes and dreams of a million slaves. I stand embraced by my creator, as God now smiles upon my people.
*

Yes, I Now Stand Firm--Firm, Black, and Free.

*

Eric L. Wattree
Wattree.blogspot.com

Sphere: Related Content

EXPERIENCE, WHAT EXPERIENCE?

BENEATH THE SPIN • ERIC L. WATTREE EXPERIENCE, WHAT EXPERIENCE? I have nothing against Hillary Clinton--I'm less than happy with several of her votes, but I'm sure I'd feel the same about any politician that I examined closely enough. But what does rub me the wrong way is this experience sham that she's trying to promote--it's fully transparent, and clearly designed to mislead the politically naive. The problem is, if she's trying to pull the wool of the eyes of some, why should I believe anything she says? But I try not to get too worked up about it, because the hardcore Hillary supporters are doing more to help the Obama campaign than they can possibly imagine. Actually, if they didn't exist, Obama would do well to pay people to play their role. All of the finger pointing, mudslinging, and anger that they're bringing to this campaign is exactly what the American people want to get away from. What Hillary, and many of her supporters, don't understand that the American people realize is that they generate so much bad feeling among such a large sector of American people, that if she is the nomintee, or even president, the only thing she would do is effectively bring the Republican Party back from the dead. Thereafter, there would be total gridlock, and more of the same. We're not dummies, we can see that--and the fact that she can't, doesn't bode well regarding her ability to face reality if she became president. She seems to think we're idiots. She keeps talking about all of this experience that she's suppose to have. She reminds me of the Republicans who continue to try to convince us that Iraq has weapons of mass destruction. She seems to think that if you tell a lie often enough we'll buy into it. Exactly what experience is she talking about? What office has she held that dealt with global warming, the military, the economy, negotiating with the enemy, or handling the budget? Absolutely none. She's not talking about Hillary, you're talking Billary--and what does that say about being an independent woman? History has clearly demonstrated that the most valuable asset that a president can have is charisma--the ability to get the American people behind him to support his agenda. Senator Obama has already demonstrated that he has that. Hillary was dragged through the mud in an attempt to get universal healthcare passed while Bill was in the White House, Obama, on the other hand, got his legislation passed in Illinois--with Rebulican assistance. That's the kind of experience we need--the kind of experience that you can't learn, or buy. Obama has the gift of pulling people together. That's exactly what we need at this point in our history. Show me a "Republicans For Hillary" site on the web. I think that just about says it all with respect to who can get things done. Look at all the damage that Bush was able to do because he had the American people behind him--and that was without experience, or a brain. Well, with that very same resource, Obama will be able to do just as much good. Hillary, on the other hand, is going to have total gridlock. Absolutely nothing would be able to pass--and the minute she sneezed, we'd be bogged down in impeachment proceedings The fact is, Senator Barack Obama's time has come, and Hillary can engage in all of the swiftboating she likes and nothing's going to change that. The bottom line is this--the office of the President of the United States is not community property, and Hillary's going to have to get use to that fact. Eric L. Wattree Wattree.blogspot.com

Sphere: Related Content

I'M A SELLOUT FOR SUPPORTING A NON-SLAVE?

BENEATH THE SPIN • ERIC L. WATTREE I'M A SELLOUT FOR SUPPORTING A NON-SLAVE? My good brother, I've heard some uniquely original ideas about why Black people shouldn't support Barack Obama, but I must admit, you've all but stumped me here. It is your position that I'm selling out for supporting Obama, not because his mother was White, but because his father is from Africa, therefore, Obama is not a true son of slavery. You indicate, that's why White people are supporting him–it's a racist plot to first, preclude a son of slavery from becoming the first Black president of the United States, and second, to get African Americans to embrace someone who looks like us, but is not truly one of us. Therefore, by supporting Obama, we dishonor those African Americans who were forced to suffer in bondage. But you go on to say--and this is the part that I like about your thinking--that your mind remains open, so you're ready to be convinced that your wrong. I received your e-mail last night, but instead of giving in to the knee-jerk tendency to immediately respond, I thought I'd take the night to respectfully consider some of the issues you've brought to the table. In doing so I've come to the conclusion that our positions are not as far apart as it may seem at first blush. First of all, while I do honor the contribution that the African motherland contributed to who I am, I fully agree that the plight of African American slaves is often overlooked and, indeed, ignored as an embarrassment when we consider our journey as a people. I've been pushing that position for years. In fact, it is more than ironic that one of my positions that you object to most--that African Americans make up a new and distinct culture that is in the infancy of its development--was from an article that I wrote in response to an Earl Ofari Hutchinson article about ten years ago (Our History Lies Before Us). Clearly, I'm an unabashed Obama supporter, and I would love to get you to support him as well, but I clearly recognized many years ago that since I corner the market on neither wisdom, knowledge, nor intellect, what is more important than getting Black people to agree with me, is getting them to become thoughtful and independent thinkers. It'll take much more than my opinion to move our people forward--after all, it's all I can do to move myself forward. So what's much more important is that we learn to listen to one another, and seriously consider one another's opinion without demonizing each other as fools, or the enemy. We've got to realize that the Black community isn't a blanket so much as it is a quilt, made up of differing fabrics, colors and ideas. That diversity in our people, and in America as a whole, is not a shortcoming, but an asset, which can make us strong, and uniquely viable as both a people, and a nation. Pointing our finger at this Black man and that Black man as less than truly Black is something that we picked up somewhere in our history that has hurt us tremendously. If we were once a great and powerful people, I'm certain it was that very tendency that led to our downfall. You said that we should not support Barack Obama because he is not a true child of slavery. But you have no way of knowing that. You're only looking at his father's heritage. While his mother was White, how do you know that her family, or someone in her family line, didn't start out as a slave? In fact, her tendency to mate with a Black man during the years before Obama's birth may very well indicate that may have been the case. It doesn't take but two to three generations for a family to move from one race to another. There are many people in America that would seem to be pure White, or pure Black, whose family was the complete opposite three generations prior. Take my family for example. Two of my grandsons, Eric I and Elijah, on my son's side of the family are mixed. My daughter-n-law is mixed with Spanish and Jew (both European). Her mother is a pure, White Jew, and her father is Spanish. My grandsons are just a tad darker than any White man–at least, one who isn't absolutely pale. Therefore, if they marry White women, for all intent and purposes, my great grandchildren will be White people--and the very same dynamic is happening on the other side of the ledger. So unless we thoroughly check Obama's family line on his mother's side, we don't know if he's a child of slavery or not–and what difference does it make? Would finding out one way or the other make him either better or worse as a man? As a sort of humorous aside, I insisted that my grandsons study and get to know ALL of their heritage so they could choose for themselves what part of their heritage they wanted to identify. So we have this family joke where my daughter-n-law pulls my son to the side and says, "Listen Eric, I know Poppie insisted that the boys get to know their heritage, but things are not working out." Then my son asks, "What's the Problem?" "Well, now Little Eric wants to move to the West Bank, and the Honorable Elijah Wattree has cursed that his brother's crotch be embraced by the flees of a thousand angry camels. So I want you to stop Eli from wearing that fez to school. And another thing, he keeps throwing water bombs at his older brother, and he put a sign on his brother's door saying, 'Down with the Jews--Get the hell out of Palestine.' I mean, he's only in the third grade, and his teacher told me she said good morning to him and he said, 'Assalamu Alilkum, my ravishing Nubian princess.' Eric, I'm afraid we're gonna have a jihad right here in the living room." So you see, Alex, what we're dealing with here, as a species, is just as childish as what my grandsons are going through above. In the universal scheme of things, what we're dealing with is a white Cocker Spaniel telling Black Cocker Spaniel that I'm better than you. We weren't put here for that. God or, nature, if you will (they're synonymous to me) provided man with the most powerful computer in the known universe, and we're wasting all of that potential using it to play video games. Man is the very soul of creation--the eyes of the universe looking back upon itself--but instead of revelling in that realization, using that potential in the pursuit of knowledge, we're wasting it contemplating our navels, and arguing about whose belly button is the prettiest. We're involved in a meaningless argument that we will never resolve. In the end, nature will determine who is superior–because the other group won't be here. Evolution has clearly demonstrated that there are superior members of every species--they are the ones that nature selects to survive. Prior to man, survival of the fittest use to mean what species, and members of a species, was strongest, most ferocious and best able to adapt to an ever changing environment. But after man was placed on Earth as a naked ape, that dynamic changed. Now, the fittest, or more superior is about brain over brawn. When man arrived here on Earth, there was no reason to think he would be successful--he was neither as ferocious as the lion, as powerful as the elephant, nor could he fly like an eagle. But nature provided man with something new, a cerebral cortex--the human mind. Now, through the use of that mind, man is now the true king of beasts. We can slaughter the most ferocious lion, trample the most powerful elephant, and soar far beyond the eagle's domain. Thus, it is the human mind, and only the human mind, that separates superior men from lessor men--race, creed, and color serve as mere distractions for lesser men, with lesser minds. So from my point of view, there are only two races of people--people who think, and people who don't think. As far as I'm concern, anyone who considers any other attribute in their assessment of their fellow man, is pedestrian in their thinking. Therefore, race, creed color, experience, gender, culture, and all the other distractions that man can come up with are just that--distractions. What I am more than anything else, is a thinker, and so is Obama, that's why he's my man. Eric L. Wattree wattree.blogspot.com

Sphere: Related Content

CAN A WOMAN BE A GOOD PRESIDENT?

BENEATH THE SPIN • ERIC L. WATTREE CAN A WOMAN BE A GOOD PRESIDENT? . Anyone who can't answer the above question in the affirmative couldn't have been raised in the Black community. As ashamed as I am to have to admit it, it is clear to anyone with eyeballs that the African American culture is matriarchal by it's very nature. That said, now I'm supposed to start explaining all of the conditions beyond the Black man's control that led to this state of affairs, but the fact is, I'm not predisposed to lying, so I refer you to Black Entertainment Television (BET) and you can be the judge. . Ok, had enough? Now that you've viewed the misogynistic subculture that has all but seized the soul of the young Black male, it has to be clear that any woman who can manage to raise well rounded, productive, and stable children--by herself--in such an environment can do anything. . So, of course a woman can be a good, even great, president. But I don't count Hillary Clinton among those women. Hillary, and many other so-called "feminists" of her generation, suffer from seriously misguided views on what it truly means to be a strong and independent woman. They actually diminish the meaning of womanhood by embracing the position that the only way a woman can truly be strong and independent is by being more like a man. . She, and many other modern women have dedicated their entire lives to the proposition that the traditional role that women have played in society is something less than what a modern woman should aspire to. I firmly disagree with that position. While I think that a woman should be free to compete with a man in any and every area in this society, I also think the role of the traditional "housewife" has been severely undervalued in this society. What our society looks upon as a "mere housewife" is actually a mother, a psychologist, a nurse, a chef, an economist, an interior designer, and in many cases, a sex therapist for a philandering husband--and society has been going downhill every since these women were convinced that what they did wasn't worthwhile. . Remember Donna Reed? Women of Hillary's ilk tend to look down their nose at women like that, but consider this--there was no such thing as a drive-by on Donna's watch. She created a stable home environment that served to stablize society as a whole. She did more for society from her family's house, than a Hillary clone could ever do as president from the White House. The problem with the Hillary kind of women is that they fail to recognize that fact. They see women like Donna as "quaint", and completely fail to realize that women like Donna are directly responsible for who, and where they are today. So it's not Hillary that I dislike, or her chosen path in life; it's the condescending attitude of Hillary-type women towards homemakers--and I don't think I'm alone. Hillary hasn't personally done a thing to deserve the hostility that she engenders in many Americans. While much hostility is directed at her, it's not about her, it's about what she represents--the degradation of America. . The American people don't have a problem with women seizing the opportunity to express their creativity and potential as human beings, but what they do resent is a handful of abitious women attempting to further their personal goals by convincing a generation of housewives that they're being less than productive by not entering the workforce to take up arms against men. Prior to these women entering the workforce, one income was sufficient to comfortably support a family. Now, a woman must work whether she wants to or not just for most families to survive, because once working women put more money into circulation, the business community simply doubled the cost of living. So what we're left with as a result of this mass exodus of housewives into the workforce is a rise in the of the cost of living, women being forced to juggle family and a fulltime job, latchkey children, a hoard of incorrigible teenagers, a rise in workplace indiscretions, failed marriages, and skyrocketing crime--a net loss anyway you look at it. . But of course, now I'm going to be accused of wanting women to remain barefoot and pregnant, but that's not at all the case. Women should be free to go into whatever profession they choose, but if they choose homemaker as their chosen profession, they shouldn't be denigrated as "barefoot and pregnant", because as our current situation clearly demonstrates, they are actually the backbone of this society. . This country is falling apart because we allowed the "feminists" of the sixties to sell us a bill of goods. When these women chose to pursue professions and then ran into sexism in the workplace, instead of addressing the problem within the workplace itself, they decided to hitch their wagon to the civil rights movement in order to sop up some of the gravy that the eloquence of Martin Luther King had stirred. But in order for these White, middle and upper class women to make an effective case--many of whom, living comfortably, and supported by husbands--they had to convince all of the housewives across America that they, as a class, were just as victimized as Black civil rights activists, who were not allowed to vote, couldn't find jobs, and were being attacked by police dogs. . So while these women did have a just cause, they addressed that cause in a fraudulent manner--and in the process, convinced women across this land that raising a family and laying the foundation that everything else in our society is built upon was something less than a desirable pursuit. They also convinced many women that the only things that are of value in this world are those things that men do--in fact, focusing on being a lady, in itself, was a frivolous pursuit. The message was, the only way to compete with men was on a man's terms--a message that places women at a gross disadvantage. . I have a good friend who happens to be an Asian. She's so beautiful she doesn't look real--she looks like someone drew her. In addition, she's brilliant, and one of the sexiest women I've ever laid eyes on--and she knows it. Her only shortcoming is she's bought into the nonsense that it's against the rules to use her femininity to help her get ahead. She told me one day that her boss wouldn't allow her to move up any farther in management. When I asked why, she said, her boss always tries to flirt with her and she doesn't want to play that game. So I asked her, doesn't your boss use his deep voice and intimidating personality to get what he wants? And she told me that he did. I then asked, so why shouldn't you use your beauty and feminine wiles to get what you want? You don't have to give in to your boss, just make him think you might--right after the next promotion, then the next, and the next. You don't have to give up a thing. Just keep hope alive. There's nothing immoral about that.  You're simply manipulating him with your feminine beauty in the same way that he manipulates you with his masculine ability to intimidate. . So, absolutely a woman can be good president--and quite possibly, one of the greatest presidents we've ever had. But I don't want one who thinks she has to act like a man to be successful. I want to vote for a female who's intelligent, charismatic, and well educated, yet, not afraid to stick her hands in dishwater. Yes, I want her to be professional and dignified, yet, also know the value of a short skirt and silk shiny stockings. I don't want any president who's going to try to be effective with one hand tied behind his or her back. A president should be prepared to bring every resource to bear. So if the president happens to be a woman, sure I want her to know how to be firm when she needs to be, but she should also know how to work it like it's hot. .  If a man's strong suit is intimidation, the illusion of power, and brute force, a woman's is insight, subtlety, and finesse. Once a woman loses sight of that fact, she's tying one hand behind her back. . Eric L. Wattree Http://wattree.blogspot.com Ewattree@Gmail.com Citizens Against Reckless Middle-Class Abuse (CARMA) Religious bigotry: It's not that I hate everyone who doesn't look, think, and act like me - it's just that God does.

Sphere: Related Content

WHEN I LOOK AT BARACK OBAMA

BENEATH THE SPIN • ERIC L. WATTREE, SR. WHEN I LOOK AT BARACK OBAMA When I look at Barack Obama, I not only wonder why every Black person in America isn't supporting him, but why they aren't jumping up and down with glee at the opportunity. I've had many people tell me--both Black and White--that I'm just supporting Obama because he's Black. True, I am supporting Obama because he's Black, but not ONLY because he's Black. I'm supporting Barack Obama because in spite of being blessed with Black skin, and all the disadvantages that entails, this brother has managed to rise head and shoulders above the very best this society has to offer. That not only empowers him, but it also allows Black youth to embrace their Blackness with a lot more genuine pride. It allows them say, and more importantly, think, "Yes, I'm Black, and you're damn right I am somebody! I'm the product of a great and resilient people. That's very important for young people, because as the Bible points out, "As a man thinketh in his heart, so is he." So, no, I don't support Obama just because he's Black–I support him because he's Black, on top of all his other fine qualities. Both Jesse and Sharpton are also Black, and I didn't support either of them. But this is different. When Barack Obama stepped upon the world stage, I could feel a change in the air, like something important had just happened, or a significant presence had just entered the room. I felt like, for the briefest moment the world stood still, then I looked up to see a lone figure standing on the horizon. And I wasn't alone--White folks across this land also felt it. When the change started to take hold, I noticed that in places that would have met Martin with attack dogs and fire hoses, White people were jumping up and down, smiling and singing--some of them with tears in their eyes--straining just to touch this young Black man. That's when I knew it was happening--I knew a change was coming eventually, but not like this. He came fast, and out of nowhere like a thief in the night–far from the Messiah, but like a man who knew his time had come. Then, like in that Phil Collins song, I could feel it comin' in the air, oh Lord! It was clear there was something different going on here--something that's been in the cards every since that first slave looked to the sky and said, "Please help us, dear Lord." Now, I not a religious fanatic, so I'm not about to sit here and preach you a sermon. But I am spiritual, and I'm telling you, Obama's arrival is not an accident. I don't know why, but some things are just meant to be–and if you look at them in hindsight, you can see it! When you look back on Martin and Malcolm, it's clear they were meant to be. I don't know why, but some men are just put on Earth to fulfil a plan. You can laugh at me if you want to, but I'm telling you, Obama is one of those people. Think about it. This brother is the complete opposite of everything nasty that racists have ever said about Black people. They said that we were ignorant, nasty, lazy, and didn't have any class--then this brother pops up out of nowhere. If God had handpicked somebody to show that everything racists said about Black people was a lie, we couldn't have done any better than Barack Obama. He's such a clean-cut brother that Senator Joe Biden got himself in trouble for commenting on it. His intellect and academic credentials are beyond dispute–Hillary went to Yale Law School and then got out and couldn't pass the bar; but Obama was the very first Black president and editor of the Harvard Law Review. When he becomes president, he'll easily be one of the smartest presidents in the history of this country. Think about what that's going to do to the argument of those who want to say that Black people are intellectually inferior–and more importantly, think about what it's going to do for the self-esteem of Black children all over this country, all over the world. So looking at Obama is like looking into a crystal ball–he's a perfect reflection of everything the future holds for us as a people. Even his personal heritage is a perfect metaphor for the African American people as a whole–he's the product of a marriage between Africa and America. That's what we are. Barack Obama is the walking, breathing, personification of who we are as a people. He represents the future of Black people as a whole. Many brothers like to refer back to antiquity to cite the past greatness of our people as something for us to hold on to, but while I recognize and appreciate our great contribution to the past, I'm convinced that it is the future that will define our true greatness. As African Americans, we are a brand new culture that's in the infancy of our development as a people. We're a people who were conceived in pain, born into struggle, and baptized in adversity. But adversity is experience, and experience is the source of knowledge, so we are uniquely suited to create a new, better, and more compassionate world. Thus, our history lies before us, and I'm convinced, that history will someday reflect that Barack Obama was the first step in our emergence as a people. All of us who are sitting here today, are blessed to be living at this moment in time. We are a witness to history. We're living in a time that history will someday record as the defining moment of our legacy as a people. And someday, maybe hundreds of years from now, young Black people will be able to look back on our contribution to that history and say, I now stand firm: I Now stand firm. My dedication to the power of knowledge is the platform upon which my podium rests. I stand firm, strong, and now free--free of anger, free of self-delusion, free of the folly of empty vanity, and free of the pernicious bane of meaningless pride without substance. I now stand free to look upon the eyes of other men, reflecting dignity over sorrow, and accomplishment over pain; I stand with a burning passion, fueled by the very flame that forged ancestral shackles, with a deep sense of pride, and a pride that flows deep. I now stand erect! The steel that once degraded my father, that chained him in bondage to this bitter Earth, now reinforce my character, making me more, rather than less; and the blood and sweat that once drenched his brow, and oozed from the yoke around his neck, now rage with resolve and a sense of purpose, and trembles with passion, within my burning breast. I now stand as a new being–-neither simply African, nor simply American, but a hybrid forced to transcend the sum of my parts; no longer simply African, since being torn away from the African motherland to suffer and toil in the fields of America, and more than simply American, after being forced to be more than simply American, Just to survive within the bowels of this prosperous land. Thus, I stand now armed—-armed with the wisdom of deprivation, the courage of my conviction, and a deep conviction of my courage; and fortified–with the confidence of a survivor, the empowerment of knowledge, and a ravishing hunger for greatness. I now stand the product of love, struggle, and sacrifice; a witness to man's inhumanity to man, and a monument to the hopes and dreams of a million slaves. I stand embraced by my creator, as God now smiles upon my people. Yes, I Now Stand Firm--Firm, Black, and Free. That's why I support Obama. Eric L. Wattree Wattree.blogspot.com

Sphere: Related Content